bleeding heart

Heed the Master's demands.

Labels don't matter? First of all, I'm inclined to agree, at least somewhat...but I was responding to your claims. You're the one who claimed they were heading into "National Socialist" territory. Further, I bet you've never in your life worried about a right-wing regime doing such a thing (as if such a thing wouldn't, hasn't, occurred)...because to you, it is all about "the left,"...it is all about the labels.

I agree. Further, it's basically the old Leninist doctrine; a hierarchical group advocating their own leadership in a violent overthrow of an existing order. We're For the People...But Our Little Group Knows Best. And to clarify, I'm not opposed on principle to a violent overthrow of any existing order. It is doubtless, at times, the only plausible scenario to improvement.. But this is not some democratic-minded movement; nor are they "secular" (an astonishing claim...the briefest history of the MEK shows they are actually a weird, hybridized religious cult, with all the trappings of Glorious Leaders and oppressed followers, as well as the favoured coterie of Commissars, etc.) So the old "here comes the new boss, same as.." bit probably applies in this case: tyranny replacing tyranny. As if Iran hasn't had its share of that nonsense already.

Absolutely. It has nothing to do with "friends" or ideology. The US is not allied with Israel because of moral principles; nor is it because of the fabled power of The Scary Lobby. And if and when it is in the US interests to drop Israel like a hot potato, then that's what will happen. Similarly, if Israel ever determines that the US is not helpful, it will abandon its old ally in a heartbeat. None of this should seem strange to anybody. Whether the alliance is ultimately practical and wise or not, I couldn't say. (No one could, except a fortune-teller, and as far as I know, no genuine ones exist.) But the intent is undoubtedly practical.

No, that is not why you're supporting Romney. This has never been one of your major arguments for Romny and against Obama...out of hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts on the subject.

The Nazis were a right-wing phenemenon (as neo-nazis are too...just go read their conversations at Stormfront, and bask in the conservatism). If anything, the paranoid conspiracists should be worried about Soviet-style totalitarianism...save the Nazi fears for a Republican administration.

By asserting the literal opposite of my stated views? An interesting definition of "fair." I couldn't care less about the official recognition...often "recognized" by terrorists themselves. Hamas is a terrorist group with or without the signed declaration of august Western entities.

Then he is an apostate, because he claims Christianity as his religion.

No, it's not even about Obama; it's about sad political hero worship. People still think of Kennedy and Reagan as Jesus Returns parts 1&2.

Creation theory is "theory" in a different usage. A scientific theory is not the same thing as "well, it's a theory," often meaning, at best, a hypothesis...often less than that. Evolution is a theory; it's also a fact. Creationism is a "theory"; but it's not a fact.

I'm not talking about private power as it exists, now, in our society (though it's a lot more politically potent than you seem to think). I'm talking about power rising to fill a vacuum. For example, one of the great weaknesses of libertarianism--and exponentially worse in the offshoot known as "anarcho-capitalism"--is that private entities and wealthy individuals would become the de facto government; they'd own the police and prosecutors, they'd be responsible for infrastructure. And they'd also be unelected and unrepresentative.

They're virtually all specious. No idea, I've never reported anyone. (Not a boast, just a clarification.) Oh, I get the impulse, definitely. It's understandable. Yes, it was that in my opinion the insult was too extreme. As one or two posters have "outed" themselves as victims of child molestation (and the stats suggest that it's more than a couple, truly); and since some people carry this with them as an overtly sensitive emotional scar...I think it's one of the few insults that simply goes too far. (I also believe that people's families and loved ones should be left out of the mix, for what that's worth.)

On the contrary, most agnostics (in my view) are "open to suggestions within a cultural paradigm that I understand, and with which I"m already familiar." That is, few if any agnsotics say that the Roman panteon may well be true; rather, they say that the Judeo-Christian God, or Allah, or something else contemporary and popular, may be true. I still maintain that Bertran Russell had it about right; a few "positive-belief" self-described atheists aside, most atheists are also agnostic. That is, technically agnsotic, but for all intents and purposes, atheist. I seriously don't think there are faeries in Ireland. (And most Christians, Muslims, Hindus et al will agree with me, by the way.) But if proof is forthcoming, I have no problem whatsoever changing my mind. Zero problem. What I'm saying is that I have no horse in an atheist race. My atheism is not precious to me, and to be jealously guarded. If I see (or truly feel) God or gods...so be it. Awesome. Until then, I see no good reason to suppose they exist. And I see even less reason (far less reason) why self-described agnostics should favour organized religious beliefs over anything else. And yes, I certainly think that they almost universally do. (Doubtless some exceptions.) Why should they feel it's "open-minded" to limit themselves to cultural-belief practices as their "maybes," all while believing atheists are the ones being too rigid?

Insinuating that a poster is a pedophile is the lowest of low roads. Then why are you both complaining about insults...and insulting other posters?

Well...yeah. That was the main point of my post (which you quoted) and it's stated clearly. Where in the world did you get that? Again, you quoted my post...so how do you dredge up "insults" and "character assassination" in what I said?

But unlike yourself, I wasn't simply offering some bizarre opinion.

Yes, some of the greats like Richard Pryor and George Carlin could be caustically political, and also very funny.

There are a lot of good movies in the "crime-gone-wrong" sub-genre: Reservoir Dogs, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, and of course the wonderful Dog Day Afternoon. William Friedkin, of The Exorcist fame, has teamed up with playwrite Tracy Letts to produce a darkest of dark comedies in the same vein: Killer Joe. It's dank, it's filthy, it's funny, and it's painfully brutal. It received an NC-17 rating. I know why. It is quite horribly, even clinically violent...one particular scene is of such a violently-degraded sexual nature that it is jaw-dropping. I've never seen a scene like it, and don't really want to. Yes, it's that harsh. Fried chicken takes on an ominous cast in the rearview, here. Matthew McConaughey is flat out brilliant as the title character (yes...you read that correctly). He's Joe, a Dallas police Detective who moonlights as a contract killer, at $25 000 a pop. He's one scary SOB...but this is no standard thriller, so he's no standard villain. A villain he is, sure, but so is everybody else. Chris, a small-time drug dealer, a dim bulb who is still probably the most intelligent person in his southern-fried, poverty-stricken and degraded liitle dysfunctional family, is going to be murdered by loan sharks. But he has discovered that his mother has a tidy life insurance policy. So he and his father, Ansel, decide to have her killed. The beneficiary is sexpot girl-child Dottie, the only person faintly resembling "sweet" in this dank, unpleasant movie. Except Dottie is more than meets the eye, too, as we eventually find out. Ansel is played by Thomas Hayden Church, and he is so good that only he can match McConaughey. Ansel is not very bright, he's perfectly aware of his shortcomings...and he is also quite a horrible person, moral weakness personified. Ansel's wife Sharla (his new wife, not his ex, the one to be murdered), played by Gina Gershon, is if anything the worst of the whole lot. So, these cornpone morons decide to kill the woman, and collect the money. But Killer Joe is more than they bargained for. Smooth, seductive, cold and all Business, he's a psychopathic entrepreneur, and quickly puts everybody under his thumb. Including young Dottie, whom he takes as sexual collateral until the money is paid. The thing is, as events unfold (and they unfold badly, of course), it seems that Killer Joe has also met more than he bargained for: the family is so dysfunctional, so monumentally stupid, that things don't go as smoothly as planned, all his care and masterful control notwithstanding. The last twenty minutes of this movie are so extreme that it's put some people off (and earned it the NC-17). It worked for me, but I get the criticisms, I really do. Obviously, the 77-year-old Friedkin has no qualms about shock and excess. Also, it's quite painfully depressing, and I think a sort of pessimistic parable of life at the beginning of the 21st century: perverse sex, lots of violence, casual murder, sheer greed, tv....crushing financial problems...and fried chicken. And did I mention that it's actually a comedy?

Yes, you never fail to indulge in this complaint ("usually of the leftist persuasion.") I'm sure you'll understand that many of us see more vitriol and insult emanating from the right side of the spectrum. Not that I much care, honestly, but that's my unscientific opinion. It's a matter of perspective, and I daresay that actually discovering which one is more accurate would be a great deal of work.

I wouldn't be too promiscuous with the use of this insult. It goes too far...and the genuine victims of molestation, here on this board, don't really need to be subjected to this silliness. Anyway, now you can't complain about being subjected to insutls any more, as you've just decided to top them all. Congratulations.

Like I said, there are two, completely distinct, meanings of the word. As the pejorative, it is generally compared to "gook." This is the usual meaning when used by Westerners.

These puns are revolting. And possibly polarising.

My French is rusty; does "in short" mean "as an irrelevant aside"?

Your continually one-note responses are what's broadly known as a "tell."