bleeding heart

I get what you're saying, but it's more complicated...and even by the standard you're setting, people have been tinkering with their food supply for a very long time. If by "living in nature" you mean picking fruit from (wild) trees and hunting wild animals..fine. But agriculture and animal breeding are themselves "tinkering with nature" (I have a problem with this terminology, but leave that aside fro the sake of the point I"m trying to make). That is, for a very long time, we have been breeding particular traits in--and out--of animals and vegetables and fruit. We medicate them, too, speaking of "lab rats"...and have been doing so for a very long time. I don't mean to say that these points are themselves a clear argument for GM, which needs to be looked at on its own merits and demerits. But it's a direct response to the "living in nature" argument.

The former....as is clear from my remarks already. Are you under the impression that I don't mean what I say?

Collusion with terrorists has always been a bipartisan effort, to my knowledge. I doubt the Republicans are one bit worse than the Democrats on this score. They're worse, certainly. If anyone ever had a stomach for prosecutions--which they never, ever, ever will--then no doubt it could be easily discovered. After all, these politicians have not exactly been hiding their activities. Hell, that was pointed out in the White House quote I offered...from the Bush administration, as part of their justification for war against Iraq. And now, suddenly, it's not faintly an issue. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Zing!

No, so far it's speculative, for sure.

Yes, "all the medai ignored it" must be code for something else.

This non-response is a cocnession that you can't argue any of my points. And as concessions are relatively rare,I apperciate it, Fletch, my man!

Well, for the pertinent example here, many of the posters (again, with the exception of AW...and yourself) have focussed entirely on the cries of "racism" being the primary factor. That's the "anti-pc" bit that can and sometimes does overtake a more nuanced discussion...just as pc itself is charged with. But cries of "racism" are not the primary factor. It's maybe a contributing factor. The primary factor is the authorities' failure (if that's the case...investigation is ongoing, so I understand). And elsewhere, people have been routinely denounced for "political correctness" for everything from their opinions on climate change, to opposing this or that war. It's preposterous. And don't get me wrong; I consider it relatively trivial. But so are the overwhelming majority of instances of genuine "political correctness." So that something no more than a trivial irritant becomes overblown as "chilling the debate" and so on. I've read three posters today, all from the poltiical right, complaing that disagreement amoutns to stifling them. I have little patience for this nonsense...that my supposed "pc tendencies" are stifling them. Stifling them....how? Exactly how? Further still, if "political correctness" has any meaning, the scope of it has to broadened. So when someone says (as they have, to me, many times) "why don't you support the troops?"...well, that, too, is political correctness. There are numerous examples, no doubt, from all over the political spectrum. It can no longer be viewed as a leftist phenomenon, if it ever was. As a silly old not-too-pc lefty, I'm getting extremely bored with the charge. If we're going to be honest about the bad effects of political correctness--ie chilling debate, affecting action and even policy thanks to conventional thinking and fears of being labelled this or that--then by all means, let's spread the misery around. Personally, I believe that a few very real instances aside, most charges of "pc" are entirely trivial and exaggerated...to put it generously.

No, you're being a dishonest debater, which is childish. Let's revisit the discussion, since you can't even follow your own posts: 1. You said that the NP has endorsed Harper; 2. I responded that this wasn't proof of "leftism"; 3. You countered that the endorsement is "...the NDP this term as the Libs are a dead and sunk ship" Now, it might well be that this isn't what you meant. But it's what you said, logically, given the context of the conversation. And that's not my fault. And by the way, what the hell is this?: What are you talking about? Who is stopping you? What is it with you guys, thinking that everytime someone disagrees with you they are stifling you? The fact is that if you are looking for total agreement on every single one of your opinions, you're going to have to visit Stormfront or some other far-right site. Everywhere else, people are going to dispute you. Grow up and take it like a man.

So she's cognizant of your posting history and style. Wow, that's terrible. It's like...some attack on your free speech rights, or something.

I've already cited several well-known scholars on fascism...and linked to many others. This was pretty offensive to him, as evidence has a liberal bias, apparently. But he thinks all scholarship is leftwing anyway...he gets his info from the proper sources: those who have not studied or read widely on the subject, at all. It's the only way to get to the truth, since everybody who studies the subject is wrong, and a biased lefty radical. I mean...even our own DogonPorch (that crazed commie) took kraychik to task on this particular embarassing bit of wanton ignorance.

That was the theme under discussion, to which you jumped in and responded. I can't help it if you don't read threads for the context of what you are agreeing or disagreeing with. Oh...the National Post is now endorsing the NDP, is it? A link would be nice, as this seems rather counterintuitive.

Well, maybe so, but that's an impression. It's certainly no more valuable (to put it generously, given timelines) of my impression (matched by the poll in question), garnered from a lifetime of living here. I don't doubt it a bit. Yeah, well, in the end it comes down to a more or less immeasureable set of impressions and opinions for both of us, I guess.

Rinse and repeat eh? Ever got anything new, kraychik? Or have you missed the last couple episodes of weepy little Glenn Beck?

Endorsing Martin over Harper does not constitute being of "the left"...sweet Godzilla on His Throne, you guys deem everyone to the left of Pinochet a leftist radical!

You are in 100% agreement with his central thesis on the subject, although your agreement is promiscuously oversimplified, and you mistake the mainstream for "the left." That you repeat yourself continually--roughly word-for-word--in virtually all your posts, and that your only two subjects are Muslims and some overarching entity you call "the Left" (and repeated claims about my lack of knowledge, as you sooth yourself to this cherished song) makes this "one-trick pony" assertion a little rich, doesn't it?

Sure, and that was clearly part of my point. But so far in this debate, it seems to me that everyone (with the exception of American Woman, bless her heart) is placing the blame squarely and only at the feet of those crying "racist," and of possible politically correct effects...as if the authorities have no choice. That is, the people with the most power are let off the hook...not an unusual formulation, though thankfully not universal. It's an interesting phenomenon--this shifting of blame to certain social mores, as if they're everything. But they're not everything...the very fact they're continually contested and criticized is solid proof of this. On other debates, I've watched a couple posters blame "the left" for the behaviour of conservatives ()....this is basically the same approach to argumentation, and it's ridiculous. No one can be responsible for their behaviour...because of the effects of "the left," or of poltiical correctness. I call bull. Because while political correctness is sometimes used as a weapon to stifle action and debate...anti-political correctness frequently fulfills exactly the same irrational role. I find the whole thing quite fascinating, personally, if not in an especially good way.

Hilariously, kraychik does indeed believe that the fascists were extreme leftists. He's not alone...there are at least six or eight people with no education on the subject who think the same way.

Yes...but a lot of people in those many parts of the world do not think highly of Americans--and a lot of Canadians do. So I'm afraid I don't get your point. As a lifelong Canadian, I'm extremely aware of all the positive ways that Canadians tend to view our southern neighbours. Perhaps you haven't been subject to the complimentary views, but I assure you, they're legion.

This is roughly Noam Chomsky's view, as well...which in fact is likely where you got it, from some reactionary plagiarizing Chomsky, but misreading the institutional analysis.

Yeah, at least she doesn't beak off about subjects that she doesn't understand. That's the rational approach.

Yes, and this is evidently sober political analysis, a self-evident "truth" right in front of our faces. .

I agree completely. While I understand the chilling effect that political correctness can have, those in authority who fail to act based on these fears are simply not doing their jobs, and blame cannot be forever and 100% deflected.