bleeding heart

Yes, when the American economy is booming, people will flock there. But currently, the numbers have skewed the other way. Perhaps it's a temporary phenomenon.

I've noted similar responses elsewhere, and often, over charges of Western collusion with invasions, despotism and terrorism. But surely, that these things occur routinely does not absolve us of responsibility for our own part in it? That is, if mass murders, terrorism, etc are occurring, how can we rationally claim that our own culpability is trivial, simply because such things occur anyway without our help? They occur without our help...but if and when we do help, we are responsible for that. Obviously.

My point is that it's not important; it's not related to why the war occurred, beyond the (obviously effective!) propaganda campaign.

So you can't respond intelligently to my post. That's cool. Go play with your strawmen, then.

No, it's not my view. My view is that the weapons program, whatever it's state in 2003, was irrelevant, part of the overarching propaganda series aimed at convincing a reluctant public to go to war. The others being "terrorism," "democracy," and occasionally, "Hitler." My view is that the war was fought not for self-defense, nor to protect the innocent, nor for the sake of "spreading democracy"; I understand the war's boosters love the idea of the benevolent USA flitting about a hostile world trying to do Good, in the face of evil enemies and weak allies. I've read the same epic poems and children's tales...I simply choose not to plagiarize from them. (Oh...I almost forgot about the horrible "Fifth Column," made up mostly of the political Left, who are, so I'm told, actively (even intentionally)plotting the destruction of the West...or at least of America. Hell, some people put Obama in this category! So no, i don't take any of this clownishness serously, and am surprised that the claims are ever made with a straight face.

No, it's not embezzlement. Look, a debate on whether costs are too high--or not--is perfectly reasonable. (I'm an agnostic on the subject, personally.) But that the PM is entitled to a tax-funded Security detail is not something with which too many people are going to disagree...much less get exercised about. The reason he needs security is specifically and only because of the position to which Canadians elected him. So security is part of the deal, and is totally reasonable.

Terrorists? Calling children "scabs"? Take a deep breath......

The Governor is looking more and more insane every moment.

Jeez, that's a lot of emails in two years. Busy little bees!

Yes, they had the dignity to know when they were bested in argument. The shrunken little minority of stragglers seemingly didn't get the memo. Hell, i almost forgot that some people really, really thought that scary Saddam was a terrible threat to the West. It was funny then, and it's funny now.

??

In other folks; books, the US didn't back Iraq in that war...before using it later as an example of Saddam's evil.

I don't disagree with it at all. I didn't know if you were offering a personal judgement on atheism, or (as you've clarified) reportage about general public ignorance.

??? So much for "his character and record," if atheism alone would have lost him votes. Odd that you've offered, accidentally or otherwise, the two clauses as if in opposition.

....

Yes. That's why, in "The Sopranos," the very conservative Italian-Catholic Uncle Junior speaks wistfully: "I loved that man!"

Yes. Thank you.

We're not disagreeing on any of this. Just so. I used "knowing" versus knowing. The first being what we think about every single thing--without exception; the second being, to my understanding, impossible.

Well, now you know. Political forums are educational in many ways.

It should go without saying that this applies equally to my two opponents in this little discussion. Fortunately.

Ha!

Of course. Fortunately, no one was trying "to silence opposing views," so there's no problem.

Correct. He's the only one on this thread who has received a personal attack; not you. And yet your principled stance against personal attacks doesn't extend all the way to the one person who was actually personally insulted. Meaning, of course, that it's not an issue for you in any way. Which sort of renders your entire premise here moot. ???? There seems to be some evidence against this.

"The Queen" is guilty of personal attacks now.......how interesting.

???? Of course not. you're oversensitive. I don't think you understand the connotations of "attempt to silence me" and "efforts to silence me." No. It is not.