bleeding heart

Yep. So much for Pliny's argument here.

Also facing fandom and adoration, don't forget. And knowingly and voluntarily facing a big paycheque for his proselytizing....otherwise he'd arguably be doing something else

Unfortunately. A child star on an overrated sitcom, and now a delusional religious fanatic. However, both were lucrative career choices, so I give him token credit for understanding how to make lots of money.

Some might cogently argue that it's catching on more than ever.

Where is his lie in the opening post? I understand that you disagree with his assessment...but that's hardly grounds for accusations of lying.

Sure. Let me clarify. when some people say "let the market decide", theya ren't quite talking about what you're talking about. They're talking about decisions made by human resources staff, based on projections sent down to them form above, based either on shareholder or upper management decisions. That's not "the market"; and it's "the invisible hand." It's executive decisions. It's not that some entity called "the market" has magically determined that Walmart employees should get paid less than costco empoyees for the same work. Heck, costco doesn't have nearly the market share of Walmart, so that argument fails even by the stupid criteria some people try to pull as "logic."

Not a bad point; if one remains on the defensive all the time, the question "then what?" isn't a terrible one. But part of the problem is that there's no objective way to measure it. Not really. to say "let the market decide" is a poor answer, because usually by "the market" people mean (whether they know it or not) actual decisions made by human beings, not based on any objective criteria. So in a sense, the warring factions are rather in the same boat.

You disagree with him. So, QED. 'Roids and Romney, I think.

I assume you keep trying to shift the ground and redraw the parameters of each discussion because you intuit that your position is untenable.

Ok, sport.

Those who give democracies a pass, particularly their own countries and close allies, while habitually condemning other states, are obviously shivering under the weight of doctrinal "truths," and proving the efficacy of propaganda.

You asked about "rewarding terrorism." Perhaps you'd temporarily forgotten the terrorist histories of the nations that you most admire. Now you're changing the subject.

Israel is not free from "rewarding terrorism." Obviously. Perhaps it hasn't achieved the extreme levels of the US, the UK, France, et al...but it's hardly been free of that particular ugliness.

Wowza. One single country with spine, and who does what's right. This seems counterintuitive on its face.

Of course not. But the point is this: if a company with the resources of Walmart finds it more expedient to go out of store for this kind of maintenance, then why would you expect it to be in-house for schools?

Even so, the subject under discussion is not related...because the subject under discussion predates the vote. And incidentally, according to most of the political right, Canada and the US are "nanny states"...not at the top of the list, but fairly close. So I guess we're biased as well.

The vote is not "vilifying Israel." But it's beside the point anyway: this matter goes well beyond the recent vote...and predates it by a long shot.

There is plenty of condemnation of the Palestinians...including right here on MLW. And it's certainly not unique to here. Put it this way; of the posters here who have made the same point you've made--about far worse crimes occurring elsewhere--why aren't y'all asking yourselves the selfsame question that you pose for Israel's critics? Why the condemnation of Palestinians, when so much worse is happening in other regions? Why should such a question be unidirectional?

Then how does this critique not apply to those condemning and/or outright vilifying the Palestinians?

Walmart doesn't replace their own light bulbs, for that reason. They hire someone to do it. Now, if someone's gonna say that this is because of unions......

And Hitler is a revered figure among large swaths of Hindu right-wingers in India, particularly among adherents to Shiv Sena politics and the late Bal Thackeray. A teacher was interviewed on the CBC today, and said that the majority of her students thought very highly of Hitler. This too is the fault of the Muslims, I assume.

Yeah, a fair question. Let's assume that Infowars occasionally gets something right (gritting my teeth)...the way the National Enquirer has actually broken a real story or two. But a little more sourcing would be nice, and give people some real reasearch opportunities to sink their teeth into. Infowars alone does not have a great track record.

?? If you mean that everybody is supporting the use of chemical weapons, but unfairly denying Israel the same pleasure, sure.... .....what are you talking about again????

You're right. I sympathize...I'm a long-time horror buff, and so have spent a tremendous number of my entertainment hours being scared. Hell, it beats being scared by evil Arabs and robotic Commies and the like...though some people clearly enjoy that.

I was only correcting your factual error. Your little sidstepping is cute, though!