bleeding heart

I'm telling you for your own good that you are factually mistaken. "Libertarianism" has been around, as a leftist paradigm, for ages, kraychik. Libertarianism started with the left, and predates conservative libertarianism by a long, long, long time. Let me repeat that for you, so you understand that I mean what I say: Libertarianism started with the left, and predates conservative libertarianism by a long, long, long time. you don't understand that libertariamism is, and long has been, a leftwing phenomenon as well as a rightwing one; and that the former predates the latter. This point isn't up for debate, kraychik; you can't determine facts to suit your ideological tendencies. Start with Wiki (you only need type "libertarian socialist") and then, if you wish, you can follow some links. Which begs the question: why not do a minimal amount of research (say, two minutes worth) before making declarative sentences that are demonstrably, proveably false? Save you some embarassment that way. Kraychik: I'm right on this point, and you're utterly mistaken. This is not an attack on you, and has nothing to do with being defensive; and it's unrelated to any of our other disputes. I'm interested if you're actually going to admit that I am right and you are wrong, once you've done a little research. Time will tell!

Whatever value the term "Western alienation" might once have had, the notion, considering the contemporary political context, has reached a point of diminishing returns.

I realize you're frustrated that your lack of thinking on the matter has come back to nip at your heels. But again: even your criticisms of what you deem "the left" are almost entirely distinct from, often opposite to, the Islamist belief systems. That's not a controversial assertion, but a truism. Sorry if it shatters your cherished talking point, plagiarized from some professional red-baiter or other on some blog that had a profound effect on you. The Islamists are not leftists. They're conservatives. And I do you one better here: I say at their conservatism does not reflect on you. Whereas your obssessive Left-hatred allows no such distinctions.

No, your argument is entirely specious...it's nothing more than the masturbatory notion that conservatism, if applied properly (an impossibility thanks to the irritants to your hypothesis, known broadly as "human beings") is not only good; but that, in obeisance to tautology, what is bad cannot be conservative. .

Speaking of "obliviousness of core political concepts," you are self-evidently unaware that libertarianism--the concept, and the very word itself--was originally a leftwing phenomenon. It was later (much, much later) adopted by a wing of the conservative movement. You're pretty incautious about insulting posters' supposed lack of political knowledge...about subjects of which you personally know very little. Whyzzat?

No, it's that a fifteen year old in most cases is going to do everything and anything to please his father...and has only just started to see him as something less than a god, in many cases. When the father's a violent radical, it can have bad effects. And I place Omar's responsibility at the level of a fifteen year old--that is, at the level of a person who is deemed unfit to drink, smoke, vote, or even work at Canadian Walmarts. It's nowhere near zero responsbility...but it sure as hell isn't adult level, either.

Yes...that's uncontroversially the case. It is explicitly so. Further, I think a lot of evidence could be found that it is succeeding. What's the problem? As you say, accurately, in another post: And that's part of the purpose for the attempt at normalizing homosexuality within the broader society.

Honestly, no, that would not be more fun.

I'm not playing a game, I'm allowing your argument (they're not conservative)...and showing how it undermines another part of your argument (they're leftists). Ok, leave aside my contention of their fundamental conservatism...and look only at your argument that they're leftists, coupled with your reasoning that they can't be deemed conservative: You say they're not conservative, because conservatives aren't statists, and they are. By the same token--exactly the same token--your token--the fact (inarguable) that they don't adhere to most leftwing principles means that they cannot be leftists. That's your argument, kraychik. You can't have it both ways.

Just so. These are, openly and proudly, leftwing and rightwing sites, respectively. No problem that I can see.

Eyeball isn't a commie. More of the "libertarian socialist" type.

No. There's no "perfect conservatism" in which every set of applicable doctrines are met. So of course there will be varying degrees of deviation from doctrinaire principles. (And it's a good thing, in my view, for those on every point or sector of the spectrum.) So no, obviously the extremist Islamists aren't going to behave the way most self-styled conservatives would wish them to. But yes, they're plainly right-wingers. And leave that much aside, and go further into the delineation: consider your argument: do you not suppose there are many ways that the Islamists don't adhere to typical leftie contructs and ideals? Statism aside (and plenty of leftists are less statist than mainstream liberals and conservatives, just by-the-by)...in most ways they are distinctly opposed, fundamentally opposed, to almost everything every leftwinger stands for. By your own measurements, there's no way they could be deemed "leftist."

Is this a clean-your-own-house-before-worrying-about-others'-houses sort of principle?

Most immigrant Muslims aren't even slightly an "enemy." A few radicals here and there, sure. I remain stubbornly unafraid.

You're predicting a response, and your prediction has teeth. Kraychik has elsewhere informed me that the most obviously arch-conservative forces on Earth--theocratic jihadists--are in fact...yep...leftists.

No, it's a decidedly undesperate observation about cowards and fear-mongers. You don't think I've seen arguments precisely identical to yours summoned a thousand times by a (thankfully quite small) number of fringe right-wing not-quite-intellectuals over the years? You're not the first rodeo clown I've been compelled to slap to the dust, I assure you. Surely you don't think you're original and individualistic? Ye gods.

Probably a few. But it's trivial. To make it analogous with the original waves of immigrants--who (in their minds) were not even arriving into already-existing society(ies) is a specious argument at best. To listen to some posters, there's an actual "immigrant" (read: Muslim) conspiracy to come here for the sake of changing Canada's culture...which, of course, is static, perfected, and "European" (read: British). Alternatively, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are going to take the easy approach: rather than politically radicalize Canada, or turn it into a theocracy, they'd prefer to live their lives in peace, make some money, raise their families, and enjoy life. And if we weren't talking about scaaaaary Musselmen, these basic truisms wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

Is it an unusually short sentence (and it's not over yet) for a fifteen year old?

I understand the "anti-Western" accusation, as it's a mainstay of sycophants, courtiers,and Commissars generally; and deviation form the conventional pietes of State propaganda is perceived as a kind of fifth column. But "Islamist"? I don't think you've thought this through. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "the narrative subscribe to" [sic]; and I challenge you to cite anything of mine that remotely resembles your greasy little slur here. If you cannot do so, I will take it as a concession on this single point. Not allowing them uranium enrichment is a violation of the NPT. That is doubtless the case; but it's not as if you object, on principle, to the support of terrorism; as you well know, the more powerful and "respectable" states, certainly the United States of America, routinely have supported terrorism, to a larger and far more devastating degree than anything the Iranians have yet managed. So since you don't object to the support of terrorism, it's difficult to decipher why you'd summon it for castigation. Again: once you've rationally and with some honesty decided to consider these arguments, by all means revisit the thread and maybe offer something substantial.

No doubt. Hence: deterrence.

Ah, ok. It would also get the poster from the OP in a tizzy, which is maybe worth something, I suppose.

Then by the same standards, it's hardly the earth-shattering destructive force to end civilization...as the shrieking little cowards have been remonstrating with us for some tiresome if mildly amusing years now.

An attack on Iran would be "good news"?

We're talking about two rather different types of "hunting."