bleeding heart

Just so. My world is more interesting with the bluebloods with whom I can discuss and debate.

Good catch. He really is quite something. There Will Be Blood, Gangs of New York......he owns these films.

This might be reasonable...except that you evidently have little objection to judging plenty of people from other countries and regions...including Israel's neighbours. So you don't mean what you say here, by definition.

So, they could eschew "propaganda" by not reporting Palestinian casualties at all. CNN just this morning reported on, and I quote, "Massive casualties on both sides." So, at least you got the word--"propaganda"--correct. The rest of your sentence is misconceived.

You misunderstood his remark.

As much as Murphy's old-school, barbed style irritates me (oddly, I find it much better spoken than written, for some reason)...I agree with him. It's not even that I'm "siding" with the barber...about whom I don't give a rat's behind. It's that the complaint is trivial...so frigging trivial it makes the vision blur.

I take your point about kinship solidarity, but don't see this as automatically translating to a decent application of moral social responsibility. Do you have any specifics, that can't be easily offset by what most people would view as inferior social qualities? don't get me wrong; I don't see things as plainly morally progressive and socially superior in every sphere. But the idea of the moral superiority of the olden days is suspect to say the least. If that is in fact true, I believe it has always been true.

As compared to when? When did we have a "just" society that instilled excellent "values"?

And why would you ever criticize someone's behaviour?....unless, I suppose, you argue that your criticism of other's pre-planned behaviour was also pre-planned, in which case you had no choice........

No. But I don't see it as either/or. Actually they're two very different subjects (my fault, as I brought media up here): but media re broadly supportive of political and financial power...ideology is relatively unimportant. Teachers are a different matter...but no, I'm not seeing them as left-wing brainwashers...a conspiratorial argument that demands evidence.

Are they ever? Even once?

I'm not ignoring it; I'm refuting it, until solid evidence (as opposed to random cherry-picked examples) is on offer.

I had thought this thread was about speculation as to whether or not such a thing would have an effect on an election. Not "criticism" for candidates not bringing it up.

Evidently not...I imagine this was vociferously attempted last month, to terrific failure.

The whole, and rather cherished, notion of "left-wing brainwashing" is becoming...stale...to put it lightly. Schools and media, media and schools. Leftist brainwashing in the education system, and in the primary informational apparatus! Hell, if media and schools are some sort of fifth-column, left-wing brainwashing doctrinal system, they don't appear to be very effective at it!

As for Boardwalk Empire: no more Billie Kent! Rosetti's plan, I guess predictably, failed, and he may have started a genuine war. And why is Nucky so damned hard to murder?

For me, the primary difference is one of doctrinal secrecy that might or might not be telling in and of itself. The Squid pointed out the Mormon belief in Kolob. The fact that this is not well known is interesting. It is not well-known precisely because Mormons wish it to remain comparatively occluded. They are not at all eager to share this part of their knowledge and wisdom. Why not? As for Scientologists, you can't even ask them about Xenu, or about Scientology cosmogeny generally, without eliciting outrage. "This interview is over!" Ask a Christian about the Divinity of Christ---"Of course!" Or whether Jesus performed miracles: "Certainly!" Even insofar as sectarian beliefs differ, there remains very few important, doctrinal, secret "truths" that must not be discussed with outsiders, or with "gentiles," or whathaveyou. Mormons and Scientologists seem to be telling us "You can't handle the truth!" Interesting.

It hardly seems like coffee at all to me...rather, some coffee-related, flavoured hot drink.

That's justification through generaltiies. Each particular case must be judged on its own merits...and demerits. Western--especially crucial US--support for 25 years of mass murder in East Timor by the Indonesians had nothing to do with any guns pointed at the US. Hell, no one (except Indonesia itself, for a time) has even tried to portray E. Timor as a threat. The only "peril" ever floated was the "threat" of them going to the Soviets...of which there is zero evidence. In fact, the popular anti-colonialist forces devised a constitution inspired by those of the Western democracies, whom the East Timorese declared "our natural allies." Little did they know that we were going to take the side of the Imperial State terrorists next door, and aid in attempts to wipe them out.

It was a response to your direct, unqualified, and unequivocal implication that anyone who doesn't vote for Harper is not "smart." Glass houses and stones, PIK.

My guess all along has been that the NDP"s success in the last election will ultimately amount to a two steps forward, one step back scenario. That is, the Liberals will likely gain, and likely overtake them in the next election (at the very least, the one after). The NDP's seats will drop considerably. But I don't think they'll drop all the way back to what they were before the last election.

It is exactly what they fought for, whether they know it or not. (And many vets do know this, of course.) If and when you're fighting for principles of freedom...you don't get to determine the exact parameters of that freedom, and just what people will use it for.

Actually, yes, I'm pretty sure you're right. When something looks like a crazy caricature, it usually is.

No, they wouldn't. I don't know why you keep making these claims.

Good point; not really.