bleeding heart

Yeah, sounds pretty messy, to be generous.

Yes, on reflection I'm beginning to waffle a bit on my hasty guess.

Fair enough.

Not sure if you mean they should ease up on the extensiveness of their spying programs, or if you're talking about material comfort. If the latter, Snowdon actually gave up a more-than-usually lucrative career in order to blow the whistle. He was doing very well indeed, particularly for a man of his age.

Well, then we merely disagree, which I suppose is not unusual. I assume all sorts of notions--those with which I agree, don't agree, or am neutral--are generated from the utmost sincerity, and genuine, non-selfish concerns. I don't consider this to be a radical view, and by definition it is not a politically-partisan one.

It's there by implication (and by definition). "Clueless" means "different political stance." I suspect it extrapolates to alternate views on the economy, on social issues, and on foreign policy.

"Vast majority." You've made a declarative sentence lacking qualifiers. I'd love to see how you have objectively come to such a conclusion.

OK...I think I'm having a difficult time with this, because I don't believe in a vast conspiracy of "enviros" whose actual purposes are sinister and self-interested.

But like I said, the true motivation of the objector, in some instances, is protection of the value of his property, whether that value is strictly financial or otherwise. I'm not making this hypothetical person's case for him (nor against him). I'm simply stating that "enviro" and "nimby" seems to you to be anyone who objects to industry intrusion...no matter what the reason for his objection. Logically, this accounts for those who object to things like eminent domain as well....all objectors are nimby and enviros.

Sure, I understand the financial argument. But, first of all, I've never before talked to self-described Canadian patriots who think money is the only issue, or that it trumps everything else. So I find that mildly surprising. Second, such a mega-merger, if it were all about the almighty dollar and everything else be damned, would need financial guarantees to go with it....or else it'd be a pointless exercise. And I don't see how any absolute guarantee would be truly possible. If the powers-that-be are going to say: "your country is effectively over," it's going to be hard sell without some hardcore promises...to the point where there has to be some sort of prescription, some remedy, if the promises fall flat.

I don't rate that argument at all. It's a non-starter.

Yes, well, that subject is so vast and all-encompassing that not a single institutional study with such a thesis has even been discussed. There's no point, since institutional studies themselves are part of the Leftist "narrative."

No doubt; but are you suggesting hat we can infer this to be the case whenever scientists complain about the current government re scientific work and research? Because, as I assume you appreciate, no one who takes such a stance "is even remotely qualified" to speak on the subject.

As you well know, complaints don't come always or only from "enviros"; it comes frequently from property owners, many of whom obviously are not normally part of any "enviro" movement or even inclination.

I don't think it's completely impossible either, eventually. But what are the good aspects that would outweigh the bad? Personally, I don't see anything about living in the US that would be fundamentally bad...but I can't quite see how it would be any great improvement, either. So what, in your opinion, would be the improvements?

?? I wasn't suggesting he was going to do it this month. You've laid out some potential roadblocks, not some definite roadblocks.

His 2008 campaign won Ad Age's Marketer of the Year Award. Which makes sense...political campaigns are very much exercises in Public Relations, an industry which is joined at the hip with the Advertising Industry.

Oh, hey, you're (if I may use the term) preaching to the choir. I'm an atheist. But I'm with Bonam. Liberal, diluted religious belief is not an issue for me at all. And if it's to the point in which a "believer" denies the very Divinity of Christ...well, that's a monotheistic religion actively turning into something else.

I'm thinking that Obama's supporters despised Bush for some of the very same things for which they praise Obama--not least his militarism. I'm thinking of the preposterous hagiographic views of Mssrs Kennedy and Reagan. Of Pearson and Trudeau and Thatcher. I think fundamentally it comes to an adoration of power itself. Whether by natural inclination, cultural indoctrination, or both, people WANT to adore a Powerful Leader. So when they do....they're loathe to let the admiration go.

Probably not so bad, and I think it raises an interesting point about democracy, specifically about how and why people adhere to popular leaders, sometimes quite literally No Matter What. And it appears to be a thoroughly multipartisan phenomenon.

Nice. I suppose Ford's admirers appreciate the lack of PR (in the usual sense), and like the idea of leaders "being themselves" even when the warts start to fester and bleed. I might have some appreciation for this myself, if I didn't find the subjects so silly and repellent. That is, if the personalities were better, this might be more appealing. Bill Cosby said that an acquaintance of his, extolling the virtues of cocaine, claimed that it "enhances your personality." To which Cosby replied, "Yeah, but what if you're an a**hole?" The Fords' personalities, enhanced publically via avoiding professional spin doctors, might themselves be the issue. Besides, trying to perform one's own PR, without benefit of conventional PR skills, might seem to evoke honesty...but in truth, one does not necessarily follow the other.

My prediction--or guess, if you prefer--is that Harper will announce a national Referendum on the idea of an elected Senate. (I don't think abolishing it is in the cards). This will nicely position him as father of Senate Reform....and possibly dilute memories of his own part in the scandal, if this turns out to be the case.

Ok, hold on a sec.....ok, I tried it. Not obviously helpful!

I think gun owners generally have tended towards a reasonable and practical approach: for example, posters Derek and Kimmy have argued very well that some of the restrictions simply make no sense, while some of them do. So each component should be examined discretely, where possible.

Ok, I got to give you that one.