bleeding heart

....

Well done, Dre. Obviously, those most convinced by the inevitable Iranian threat are more attuned to Rush Limbaugh than to official Western intelligence assessments and official pronouncements. Tha latter being uttered a bunch of "kumbayah" lefty peaceniks, after all.

Yes...and when Canadian or American political leaders officially denounce them, Argus will then know whom he's to criticize. As it stands now, he's informed me that US support for terrorism is an awful "mistake." Unlike the Iranian enemies, whose identical (actually, lesser) behaviour is decidedly "on purpose."

No, of course they didn't. Assange hacked into the computers of the Foreign Office and put the words in their mouths. Similarly, Great Britain never refused to extradite Thatcher's good friend Pinochet. Some Latin American Marxist must have made that up. The Brits are too civilized to do anything...untoward.

And women are specially suited for the Stepford Wives phenomenon; men are...too intelligent, evidently.

Leave it to us Maritimers.

O'Leary believes that mixing "economics and morality is evil [sic]". So your defense of his behaviour is waaay out of line, apparently in the realm of Satan or Marx or whathaveyou.

I imagine he'd try to weasel out of this (perfectly logical) conclusion to his "thought" processes.

And you're quite lucky, at that. Jerry's a good reminder, for all the "what's wrong with Americans?" posters, that we have an unhealthy dollop of reactionary crazies as well. It's a universal phenomenon.

First of all, plenty of liberals are not opposed to GMOs and nuclear power...and opposition to them is not part of core science curricula, and nor is it part of many (any?) major Democrat campaign platform, at least not in any serious and large-scale way. Second, even if you were right (which I reiterate that you're not) you're looking at two very different phenomena. One is an improper use of scientific evaluation and consensus. The other is a fundamental, bedrock refutation of scientific knowledge itself. That's a serious and profound distinction, and the differences extrapolate over time. The first is reparable; the second refuses to accept, even philisophically, that anything could need to be repaired. To use an analogy: one is a doctor who is performing his duties in the wrong way. He can be educated, reformed, made to be better, by virtue of the fact of what is understood about medical science. The other is a doctor who despises medical science, refuses medical schooling, and, further, believes such things are actually antithetical to practicing good medicine. The second is worse in every way, Tim. Every way. Both are performing wrong; but one has no philosophical or educational tools to ever even recognize it....and is in fact opposed to the very tools themselves.

Like most arch-conservatives, you don't base any opinions on facts. You despise facts as much as the Creationists do. If your stated views on women in this thread are your actual opinions, you're a loser. If you're just spouting them to be a provocative little troll, then you're a douchebag. I'll let you decide for yourself.

I was trying to be generous.

And I still don't believe you're a knuckledragging moron, no matter how long you continue the pretence. But as a friendly reminder, I'd suggest to you that some people are becoming convinced, so....maybe keep that in mind.

For once I'm inclined to agree with you, though you and I no doubt would have some quibbles at the margins on the matter. When the Mohammad cartoon controversy erupted, there were exactly and only two publications (to my knowledge) who printed the cartoons: the right-wing Canadian Western Standard, and the left-wing American Harper's. Everyone else remained agnostic on the issue.

Here's my post again, in full: So your "well then, who is worse?" response to mine is puzzling, since you think we're in disagreement...even though my remark unequivocally answers your subsequent question, and falls squarely in agreement with you.

And marketing is an incredibly easy business, in which success depends profoundly on luck (the only people who dispute this are, unsurprisingly, folks who are in the business itself). Once some success is achieved, it gets even easier, as contacts are made and solidified, and forward momentum comes into play. (How do people interested in the world of Business not know this, one might ask? That is, why does something as workaday, as catch-as-catch-can, as based on simple premises and well-worn methods of emotional persuasion that everyone understands....how does it achieve such a stellar reputation among those not in the business?) Hell, I used to work in advertising/Public Relations (it's precisely the same industry, another oddly little-understood fact); and I made pretty decent money. It was easy. Very easy, aside from the soul-crushing, which you can avoid by drinking the Kool-Aid and internalizing it as "smart." So yes, virtually anyone can do it, provided he or she pays attention to the world of marketing and sees how it's done. That's it. (Taking "Marketing" at university is a waste of time of which I can scarcely imagine a corrollary eslewhere.) Peope like Kardashian and Hilton aren't even "experts" in marketing; the "smarts" that you point out are constituted precisely of someone slightly smarter than themselves--again, say, someone of average intelligence--pointing them towards advisors and marketers with a proven track record of success, who then tell them what to do. For example, I guarantee you--I promise you--that Paris Hilton's "leaked" sex tape was an intentional volley in raising public awareness of her presence, and further, that it was not her idea. And for some reason, people say, "Wow, that's smart!" No it isn't; it's banal, it's average--if I want to be generous about it--and it worked through sheer luck.) If that's your measure of "smart"--doing what slightly smarter people suggest to you--then there's not much else to say on the subject. We disagree; our standards differ. Whenever advertising and marketing is deemed "smart," you know people don't know what they're talking about...or, if they're industry insiders, they're essentially stroking themselves.

You know, Kimmy's writing is extremely solid. This isn't a reflexive notion; I've noticed this about her posts before. So why are you having difficulty understanding her?

OK, so you're not interested in an honest dicussion. That's your prerogative, though it begs the question of why you respond to anyone at all.

That's plainly covered in my post. You don't think?

Well, there. True enough. I can totally agree that some of the intended victims of murderers are assholes, so long as we can all agree that the murderers and would-be murderers are far, far worse, and by definition.

???? It's not?

Right! The "dismal science," square in the realm of the Humanities. Stupid lefties.

Yeah. It's not even that the Israelis don't have an argument. It's that non-Israelis do, too.

"Viagra, yes; the Pill, no." Not too catchy, but then, artistic talent mostly emanates from the left.

Wow, quite the piece. Tons of innuendo--denied as soon as summoned, and then resummoned again after the pieties of denial have been dispensed with. The "I'm just sayin,' but I'm not really sayin,' bit is, in fact....sayin, while his admirers mistake average erudition for witticism and insight. (Speaking of whoring out for one's pocketbook...I'm just sayin'! And that's the high point! At least, he might have conceived a mean-polemic for fun's sake, a tradition to which I don't automatically object. Except Steyn, ever his own worst enemy (Climate change "the biggest liberal hoax in history," anyone? Or Iraq as a tourist trap by spring 2004? Earlier Stenynian gems.)....decides that it's Time To Get To His Real Point: liberal narcissism, as personified by "King" Obama and his courtesan-oh-not-really-I'm-just-joking-but-am-I-really?" Sandra Fluke....a woman who is the personification of why America is in trouble. ??? The hell? Did Steyn never come across the "does not follow" fallacy in his career as musical theatre critic? All literary types are aware of this rhetorical weakness. Steyn cynically uses it, however--correctly assuming that his readership isn't quite bright enough to follow. His fans deserve him, anyway, so market principles are sometimes accurate.