bleeding heart

sTautology is tautological. A very convenient argument you've pulled out of thin air with no edifice to back it up. I've heard critical Israeli Jews complain about the tenor of the North American "debates"...in that criticizing Israeli behaviour is easy and normal in Israel, but is prone to hysteria over here. Again, incredibly convenient. If and when someone is called an anti-semite...your argument is that it's accurate. Automatically. It's not even a "where's there's smoke there's fire" rebuttal; it's "where there's an allegation there's fire." This at least approaches a more rational stance (thought it's distinctly different from your claim above...have you noticed?) But if it's true--if this is the standard to determine bigotry--than anyone who criticizes (to stay with your example) regimes hostile to Israel...but gives Israel a pass--is bigoted against Arabs. I disagree with this, as I don't think a fixity or focus (even an unfair focus) incontrovertibly determines hatred and bigotry. But it is your position. In fact, if you don't allow it to generalize broadly--if you think this "focus=bigotry" only applies to Israel--then you are bigoted against Arabs--in your formulation!

Does anyone have more than this single example? Even a few doesn't prove the point repeatedly being made, that "the criminals' rights" actually trump the victims' rights. Such allegations demand a serious and honest attempt at exposing a trend...not impressionistic outrage summoned from one or two examples.

Well done. Who said girls can't catch?

Anyone who thinks Democrat-partisanship is largely about "the left" must be a right-winger. Also, you are likely confusing "reactionary" with "reactive." It's true that part of the definition is merely about "reacting," but the word generally refers to reacting (and harshly) to major social change, and it tends to apply to ultraconservatism. Unless the dictionaries are biased lefty organs, of course; hypothetically possible, but I remain agnostic on that subject.

Me too. I wish it weren't the case, but it's not a big problem.

It's true. At the risk of platitude or fence-sitting, I think it's clear that both systems have their benefits and their drawbacks.

Yes, I was under a triply false impression: that you don't own words; that you don't get to determine the precise parameters of debate based on this ownership; and that you're not speaking in a hidden code, in which the meaning of terms remains your little secret, to be summoned only when another poster has the temerity to disagree with your selective denotation of matters such as "experts."

No, the "cult of the expert" does not rely on the use of paper credentials, thought that doubtless gives them an added air of respectability. On the contrary, "cult of the expert" is what "cult of the expert" does. I mean, surely we're not going to slide analogously into the poster-kraychik tautological abyss, in which everyone who behaves badly is automatically "not conservative"?

But what about the cases (which, uncontroversially, demonstrably exist) in which our allies, or Canada itself, are in the wrong?

You're still adhering to the "cult of the expert" which you elsewhere deride. I don't blame you, mind; but what's good for the goose....

Flatly untrue. Obviously.

Arguably the most extremist of statist views around.

So you didn't learn the basic history of libertarianism at the "academic level"; which is fine...but why pretend you know of that which you demonstrably do not?

For the last time, you could prove it to yourself, if you bothered to do a little reading. Sure, start with wiki, or don't start with wiki...it doesn't matter. There is all kinds of information...we're talking history, kraychik, and, surprise surpise, elementary facts offend you. You are terrified of demonstrable truths! Doesn't get much funnier than this.

Yeah, Persepolis is really good. Sita looks good...must check it out.

All you have to do is look it up. It's really that simple. As Bubber humbly suggests, you can google the very term itself, and discover that your admonishments about my ignorance takes on a self-admonitory colour. "Libertarianism" by definition is not solely a right-wing phenomenon. It has been part of "the left" for ages, notably among people more sympathetic to anarchism, and opposed to leftish dictatorial power. But that's only a small aspect, and a simplification; look it up, and learn. Education is your friend.

When not crying "Hail, Caeser!" means anti-Caesarism, you just know the pc sludge has gotten a little too thick. At any rate, your new standard here excoriates all MLW members as anti-American; and through inaction, yet.

Good information, important to know. Thanks for the heads up.

Imagine that! Demanding evidence! The iniquity of "the left" is a bottomless well.

Well, what we've learned in this thread--and it's a fact I genuinely did not know--is that Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, Herbert Hoover, and General MacArthur were all indulging in anti-Americanism!

Intervention? You say they're adults. Alcohol is legal. why shouldn't they able to consume it? Crack is illegal for everybody. Are you calling for the illegalization of alcohol? no, because sex of course will still occur--illegally. (There's no way you can possibly disagree with that.) So if a forty year old has sex with a fifteen year old...the kid is guilty...but the adult isn't? ???? Or are they both equally guilty? It's ridiculous. I've said it several times: I don't think anyone should be held to the responsibilities of an adult, unless they are also given the rights of an adult. That's what I've been saying; if your view is that we hold them responsible..then they also get the rights. Ask yourselfthat question: you're the one who said they shouldn't be allowed to drink...or to have sex. Christ, Signals, you explicitly endorse age limits. You don't think they're arbitrary...until you do.

Sez me. Just so.

It's true in and of itself.

And again, more often than not, the sanctimonious little shouts about "anti-Americanism" are precisely the same as any other type of political correctness. And like all the other types, it occasionally hits its target accurately...but like a shotgun blast in the dark. The rest of the time, best to dismiss it with the derision it deserves.

Meh. Those complaining continually about anti-Americanism are mostly indulging in a form of political correctness.