bleeding heart

That I don't agree with you does not plainly reflect badly on me. Whatever else Obama may or may not be, I don't think racist is one of them. Your second point is undermined by the fact that you reply to me regularly. The first point is false. You have no problem debating with me on matters of opinion. It's on matters of fact--that libertarianism has been a leftist notion far longer than a right-wing one--which has become the single matter you refuse to discuss. That's telling.

I think this is right. My understanding is that religion holds a fair amount of political influence in Israel--a sorry state of affairs (imo), but one that is shared by some other democratic countries, certainly Canada and the United States. But aside from influence-peddling and religious pc dogma, there is no actual punishment for adhering to secular ideals, even at the expense of religious sensibilities. These distinctions matter.

First of all, I think this is a foolishly irrelevant topic. I certainly don't think Obama is some race-baiter. Second, you shouldn't hold me to standards to which you personally refuse to rise. Like running away from our discussion yesterday after the facts broke your talking points.

Ah, I get you. I think this is common in debates about atrocity generally, for all sorts of reasons: partisanship, or simple personal interest....sometimes it's all too convenient, but sometimes it's quite innocent.... ....in this case, I'd wager (no, I really believe) that people simply know a lot less about the latter than about the former. And that's not entirely a politicized matter; I think the disparity in knowledge cuts straight across the debate lines on this subject.

Temporary little anomalies. Haven't the foggiest how or why such things happen.

I directly addressed your remark...one made more than once, actually. You can't blame others for responding to things that you say.

Originally from Fredericton, NB, now in Moncton.

I think you're misreading this "narrative of the left" (actually multiple narratives). There is nothing more sinister going on than an effort at greater inclusiveness, so that the many already-existing alternatives to the "traditional family" have their place as well. And the married mother-father-children paradigm certainly isn't even faintly under attack; that their place is secure, as it should and mustbe, is a given. It's not even a question. It's only "under attack" as the phrase has it, insofar as people themselves are freely choosing, for themselves, to do things another way. That's not something engineered by the left. It's that the left generally has no major issues with the major societal shift.

DoP has been perfectly clear on that front. He was talking military skill and military courage, not civility and morality. Surely you have some friendly things to say about particular Roman efforts...which doesn't mean they weren't violently brutal at times, which they were.

What's with the "Indonesian madrassa" bit, now that you're at three times and counting? Was young little Obama remiss to have attended that institution?

Yes, essentially my point. I can understand dismissing it as a platitude (not accurate, but an understandable response.) But that lamenting the lives lost brings on the ire and disagreement...that's a bit odd.

Yes, but my remark was not critical of the bombing. I only remarkedc--in the spirit of Norman Swarzkopff, Stephen Harper, and any host of people--that actively celebrating acts of death, including neccessary ones, should be beneath us. It has turned out to be a surprisingly controversial remark, for...some reason, as yet unstated.

Actually, that never occurred to me. Good catch.

That's the question, isn't it? A lot of people are feeling cynical about the Liberals, and they've been forced inot the posiiton of having to re-prove themselves.

Just so.

Just so...why this is often seen as "supporting Ahmadinejad," and nonsense along these lines, is mysterious, since Israeli and American officials have made similar observations. At any rate, it's pretty rich to witness people defending the idea of war on the premise that no one must be allowed a deterrent against aggression...and that wanting a deterrent is itself a kind of terrible crime and iniquity. The servility and sycophancy go bone deep.

That's because the companies are free from bias, and produce objective facts, simple reportage.

But became suddenly wise and poltiically sober while checking off their second choice?

Irrelevant to your "adults" argument...antithetical to it, in fact. If, as you say, they are adults, then the nanny state shouldn't be determining what isn't allowed based solely on their age. They're adults; they want to hurt their bodies through alcohol; that's their business. But you also don't believe in the concept of statutory rape. After all, how could it be a crime to have consensual sex with an adult? So that's out the window. Well then that has to happen first, before we go any further with the adult responsibility business. First, we have to change the laws, giving fifteen year olds the rightrs of an adult. And only then can we start charging them with adult responsibility. Which means we can't yet do so. Except sex, in yoru world. Can't go that far, nosiree. Do you even see how hypocritical your argument is, from beginning to end?

I can sympathize with this view. I think the argument is strong, therefore, that homosexuality be normalized, so that dangers due to bigotry become less pronounced.

Yeah, the same Chris Matthews who said of Bush: Clearly, the man is a Presidential groupie, a court sycophant. It's a bi-partisan phenomenon.

del

This is the literal opposite of my view, so I don't quite know what you're trying to get at.

Hmmmm. This might be a slight overstatement.