bleeding heart

You've lost the plot, I see. If it's any consolation, I'm sorry that a poster whom you evidently like is an advocate for rape as a war-weapon. Like you, I think that's a repellent position to hold.

Bambino and I disagree sometimes, but he's my Parliamentary go-to guy!

No...he advocated rape by "fascists," in the cases where Canada might support them, as a means for keeping Canada financially secure. (Not that it did in the real-life case that was under discussion...but hey, it's not my perverse logic.) As to whether or not you "continue to portray [me] as another bud"....well, I'm searching my imagination for something I could care less about.

Word twister! YOU said that if I agreed with the evil bud on anything, I must agree with all evil bud's horrors...like his opinion on dismantling Israel that he hasn't made. So I pointed out that under your own rules, you must agree with the (obviously more disgusting) opinions evinced by another poster...a poster with whom you frequently agree, just by the way. Now you say you don't advocate for rape...meaning you've dropped the silly associative-guilt thing. I think that's a good sign...but take it how you will.

And you're a good poster, so I doubt there'll be too many problems.

So you've already abandoned your foolishness about poster-association. Good for you. Yes. And some people choose to justify it. Including at least one poster on this board. But no...bud is obviously much worse than the advocate for rape. To quote another poster's catchphrase: "you can't make this stuff up! lol!"

We seem to be going 'round and 'round here.

?? I'm not aware that they are. I merely pointed out that a fellow-poster advocates rape as a legitimate tool of war...so long as Canadian financial interests are invoked in any way. This of course was by way of a hypothetical...since he couldn't name any way in which raping women has any substantive material benefits for Canadians. I offered this by way of exposing the silliness of your by-association rhetoric....because if you believed it, then you by definition must support rape as a reasonable part of war policy. I'm happy I can help you understand the posts to which you've been trying to respond.

You mean it would be cute, if that's what we were discussing. Except we're talking about war-rape as POLICY, and how, according to some, it is a legitimate tool of war...provided that the West can cash in on it, of course.

I'm curious as to why you'd ask this question, given that you quote the answer. Is there some childish little game afoot here?

To expose the fragility of your by-association logic, I'll point out to you that (according to your own formulation, not mine) if you ever once agree with poster Derek on anything, then you are justifying rape as a legitimate tool of war. As you say, not a hard concept.

Uh, they're your rules, stated by you. Again, you don't believe a word of this. It's nonsense. However, if you disrespect me, I do indeed enjoy it. Means I'm doing something right.

Oh, I'm more than fine. I'm actually pretty interested to watch you refrain from posting in anyone's else's discussion.

If you're going to keep posting silly things like this, which you don't even actually believe, it makes me wonder what exactly you're trying to convince me of.

Ah. See, I was unaware of the strict parameters, in which each thread belongs by default to two posters, and that no one else need comment. Presumably you will police yourself accordingly.

I would STOP doing so if I were in fact doing so.

At any rate, I'm not sure how I'm "pretend[ing] something that I never addressed.

To "push Israel into the sea"?

Except for the point I "nitpicked"...the point which was meant to underscore, as conclusionary evidence, the rest of your post. ??

Wow....so the real issue, as you see it, is that Duffy, Wright, and who knows who else actually were so honest and clean that it's resulted in their being smeared by a crazed press corps? They're truly too good for this fallen world.

Well, I dispute the absurd notion that a mainstream, Establishment news organ is or could be a "left-wing rag" outside the auspices of Cuba. Depending, of course, what is meant by "left wing"....are we talking about whom is to the Left of Pinochet? Where is the evidence of its "left wing rag" status? It's "Very well known"....by those who make the claim, but remain mysteriously unable to perform a robust institutional analysis...which is a perfectly do-able by anybody who is serious about proving the assertion.

No, it means that while my father was making $15 000/yr in 1958, he was not living under the poverty line.

Right, I agree. Because some progressives are naming Condell a "racist," doesn't mean they themselves hold racist views. If he isn't a racist, then all we can conclude is that they're mistaken--presumably from an intolerance towards certain opinions, maybe due to the "political correctness" we hear so much about....there are several possibilities. Condell aside, no doubt at all that some progressives have racist views. Why should they be totally free from such weaknesses? It obviously raises a question of hypocrisy on their part, but how widespread and important this "issue" is has not been underscored too well. With the amount of ink spilled on the subject in the past ten years or so, you'd think we'd have more than a little scattershot of examples...and even many of them, small number that they are, themselves quite dubious. Now, if people want to say that the political Right has been too often accused of racism...I think a strong argument could be made. But if the "progressive racist" label is nothing more than a "right back at you" kind of deal, we must conclude that in and of itself it doesn't constitute a very serious argument. We've seen the same thing recently with the "liberal fascism" rewrite of convention.

Please. You understand full well how these things work. "Resign" is euphemism for "forced to resign."

Boy, that's a sweet deal. Letter of the law, but avoiding the principle of the law as it's universally understood. The powerful sure know how to protect themselves.