bleeding heart

I hope you're not talking about me, AW I not only never even hinted that the police are racist--and would give them the benefit of the doubt unless real evidence (rather than politicized claims) were offered... ....I also, personally, do believe that political correctness is probably part of the issue here; but have chosen to reserve judgement, and not make absolute claims until more facts are in.

Hoo, boy.....

Not a difficult distinction. For most people.

They're not "backing a country"; they're expressing concern for and solidarity with the potential civilian victims of a possible war that they believe to be unneccessary.

I responded to Fletch; and you responded to that response. So you entered the pre-existing discussion, and weighed in on it. Now, I understand that you think you should be able to determine the precise parameters of all discussions--including thsoe between two other posters--and that we should all follow along obediently. Totalitarians always think this way. No, when posters tell explicit and demonstrable lies to get their point across, it is more than legitimate to call them on it. That's not an especially controversial idea.

Your lack of surprise over your own rank speculation over a hypothetical is not the issue under discussion; the issue under discussion is of a poster lying outright in order to prove a point (a point which would not exist were it not for the lie he told). Under your formulation, kraychik, this would be "another example of the Right exposing their own hypocrisy," in your usual tenor. Ya get it now?

Continuing with the settlements is itself a direct obstacle to any possible peace, so you're contradicting yourself.

Uh, yeah, I included that when I quoted you...as you'd know if you looked. And it doesn't change the fact that you lied, now, does it?

Ok Here's you, quoted directly, no edits, writing exactly what I claimed you wrote: Right? Right. Here's something I very rarely offer in any argument: You're a liar. Congratulations.

Show us where the Globe said "1200 people were calling for murder," an assinine statement with which you unaccountably take as truth; Or admit that you made it up. Or you can continue to attempt to weasel your way out of it...it's all good.

Well, when people say things we don't like, then our rights are violated. What don't you understand about this sober political theory?

You did. He made explicit claims, using declarative sentences, and culminating with holding you personally culpable. So your asking for substantiation and evidence is more than reasonable.

The Globe said that there were 1200 protesters...or that all 1200 of them were "calling for murder"? Because that was your claim, Fletch. Unequivocally.

Yes, people should definitely stop criticizing Harper. It's bad for democracy.

Hey, let's just promiscuously invent "facts" so we can fix them around a point of view. What fun!

Good point. Even in the "higher arts" world of literary superstardom, India's biggest and most respected export has been Salman Rushdie--whose writing is, by his own assessment, "Western-oriented" in style and sensibility.

If something is of interest to Kraychik--particularly involving mean old Muslims or sinister lefties--then it should constitute the primary run of national news, for all sources. Yes, it takes some discipline, no doubt.

Nice.

WB: as I'm sure part of you must recognize, the majority of comedians (and entertainers generally) hail from the liberal and left parts of the spectrum. There simply isn't much right-wing comedy. Hell, even you had to use as your example...Rush Limbaugh, comedian extraordinaire!

Wrong.

I'm inclined to agree. Harper comes across as serious, workmanlike, and comfortable with political battle. (This is exactly why Mulcair was chosen, in my view: Harper himself determined the NDP pick.) Trudeau? It's less clear.

Oh Ho! So you believe everyone is a total idiot, and can't see what you're driving at. What an unbelievably dishonest remark. Of course it's about abortion...that is precisely your interest in it, and why you started the thread.

Kraychik: Just as point of order, because I think clarification might be needed, both Michael Hardner and Cybercoma have stated their disagreement with the "no zero" policy. But it does not then follow that they support a teacher breaking the rules, without repercussion. And your "NAMBLA" remark is in fact sort of the point. There are all sorts of "principles" to which a teacher might adhere, but that go against rules and policy....so at exactly what point is it acceptable to break employers' rules (without repercussion)...and at which point is it not acceptable? Do you have some precise guidelines on the matter that can be followed?

You cannot score a zero under poster socialist, so no worries.

On the contrary, if you're right, it's a decidedly happy thing.