bleeding heart

No side in these debates is utterly free from political spin and damage control. But this one (predictably) sounds particularly desperate. Romney said exactly what he's been accused of saying. If we're now going to insist that it's not what he "meant"....well, that too is 100% Romney's own fault.

And this is precisely the view to which you should be adhering--recognizing the distinct (actually, likely) possibility that your view is beset by dogma and foolishness...and you should be open-minded enough to try to look at things from another perspective. You may or may not have noticed, but the denier side is demonstrably less well-read on the subject than is the other camp. That alone is not proof, but it should give one a bit of pause, at least.

That's flatly untrue. Read it to yourself and try to keep a straight face.

Well, sure; he was perfectly explicit about it. Lots of people who are offended by Islamist terrorism have no issue at all with terrorism in general. Of course, it begs the question of why they pretend to outrage and sanctimony about "terrorism," when in fact they support and defend it.

I agree, practically one-of-a-kind, no small achievement.

I've heard that scientists are disproportionately atheist by percentage. But I don't know for sure if this is true.

I do have a vague memory of lunatic babbling on these subjects, but I thought it was a dream I had in which Keanu Reeves and Lindsay Lohan were explaining economics to me.

Certainly his campaign is looking more and more like a debacle. And in fact, you can make plenty of mistakes: Obama's "clinging to guns and God," or whatever it was, was definite misstep, but such things are survivable. It made him sound to many people like some sort of liberal elitist. But if sounding like an elitist is a problem, then Mitt (already struggling with this image) just dug himself a very deep hole. And when the campaign mistakes keep coming and coming, then you probably lose. And according to the article, David Corn still has more video to show us. Romney dismissing half the country as losers without a compass is a bad one. Really bad. What's even worse is his full-frontal, unabashed remark that he basically won't be representing nor working for them, anyway. As for the Jesus bit: I'm assuming that either God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't automatically pick sides with Republicans, or that he actively hates Romney, anyway.

I believe he'd prefer not to say.

Fair point. Or between bad and bad......

Sweet Godzilla on His throne, WB: that Canadians would not wish to become Americans does not translate into "rabid American haters." ???? Are you really that unaware of the state of the American economy? Are you really that unaware of the state of the American economy? Very conceivable; but it's moot, because Canada won't ask to join.

Yes, but I said current, and the one just previous (Martin). And Harper's run has been very successful, so boring is not always an issue.

You think the loss of the CFL is the only potential downside? And you think the majority of Canadians would accept such a proposal even for a second? Carry on, then.

Being boring is approximately a zero percent issue. Consider the current, and previous PMs.

Well, at least you're openly admitting that Western states are routinely aligned with, and helping, terrorists. An unusual concession. Also unusual is condoning terrorism...but that's another topic, I guess.

The West is the most politically powerful region in the country now. So is your analogy that two sheeps are oppressing the wolf? Or...?????

Yes, that was absurd. Especially sicne he has been graced, so far, with being painted (and almost universally) as a rational moderate, opposed to violence. (I'm making no judgement about the accuracy of this widespread view, only that it exists.)

I'm sure you're right. There's no reason to suppose that practicality isn't the driving force.

No. You opined that my argument was something that hadn't even entered my mind...much less become part of my response. That is, As if I were talking about the crudest form of feminist identity politics...bashing "men," or something. Totally unrelated. No, you demonstrably don't, as you'd much rather invent a view for me that I didn't say (and for the record do not hold). It doesn't even rise to the level of caricature.

There's a definite difference, it's true, but I don't see this as some sort of measurement of emotional nutjobbery. If I did, why might I not think that the relative lack of crying suggests an emotional nutjob?

Then eyeball, cybercoma, jacee, black dog and (why not? ) myself make, by your assessment, an awful lot of excellent points. And I thank you for the compliment!

I can grant you some of this, and to a point; it's true that Rand wasn't admiring the killing of children, itself. But if that were the case, there'd be no one defending her, and so this conversation wouldn't be occurring right now. But there's still much that's troubling about the scenario...and let's face it, it has virtually nothing to do with any of the examples you pointed out: Rome, Khan, etc. We're not talking about an historically complex entity whose contributions or effects are demonstrable (whatever else one may think about them). Hickman didn't do anything else of note; he didn't propound some philosophical or moral ideas that any rational and healthy individual might appreciate, even as they deplore what he did. In fact, the sheer banality of it, and the sheer absurdity of Rand's "inspiration" from him is a puzzle. consider: When Hickman reportedly said that "what is good for me is right"--not exactly an insight, or original, or profound, or anything at all except the sad boasting of a psychopath--Rand's assessment of this is "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard." ??? Really? I mean,leave aside the "real man's psychology" bit, which in and of itself is pretty cringeworthy, reactionary, and outright sexist; never mind that, because more to my point here is that this ridiculous. "What is good for me is right" is the best and strongest expression...? You've got to be kidding me. I can read a hundred phrases more insightful, left, right, centre or neutral, on any given day here on Mapleleafweb. Or by watching Sesame Street. I'm not exaggerating, either. Also, and here's what's troubling--and what I think is directly related to her philosophy, which should (but doesn't) bother her admirers--is thta, after being bizarrely "inspired" by a dull-witted loser (because of his masculine virtues) she lays out a character sketch, in which the hero (not some character whose morality she is navigating and examining in its compelxity...like a real novelist would do, needless to say...but the admirable hero) is described this way: This is one part mindless, masculinist fantasy, a caricature of the real individualistic sentiment (which always has the good of society in mind, at least peripherally); and one part sociopathy. It's practically textbook: other people don't exist...for the masculine "hero." Which is to say that I don't think Rand's detractors, largely, misread her. I think her admirers do.

That's how I feel about it, too. I understand that it's easy to blow a lot of money, but even very simple math, coupled with a basic understanding that cash cows don't always live forever, should allow a very wealthy person with average intelligence to avoid financial devastation. Easily.

American Woman makes an interesting observation, CPCFTW. you seem to have softened your stance from "women are emotional nutjobs" to something less provocative. Why? Real Men tell what's what, are Results-Oriented, and Get the Job Done. Apparently. Waffling doesn't help; it's evidently more of a...feminine trait.

Yes, we've gone over that. It's not incredibly impressive, given the circumstances from which they arose.