kraychik

Romney never said that Obama didn't make those comments on September 12. You are the one lying.

It's quite possible that Romny was trying to illustrate the subsequent contradictions from the government after Obama's September 12 statement which loosely associated the September 11 attacks on diplomatic missions as terrorism. Obama, in later days and weeks, would not clearly state that these were acts of terrorism (on The View, for example). Furthermore, many persons from his administration were directly contradicting Obama's initial statement, most prominently Susan Rice's Sunday morning talkshow circuit where she lied on five different shows about these terrorist attacks actually being "spontaneous" eruptions of rage from an obscure YouTube film trailer. It's likely Romney was going to demonstrate the duplicity of the administration, but Crowley seemed committed to shielding Obama from this line of criticism. Crowley later admitted that she was wrong to have intervened. She actually conceded it immediately after the debate.

Romney never said that. You heard what you wanted to hear.

Show me in the transcript where Romney ever challenged the fact that Obama used the language, on September 12 in the Rose Garden, "act of terror". Crowley did what you're doing now, she preemptively decided what Romney's line of dialogue would be. Both you and her are the ones "making up facts".

It was perfectly clear in the context within which it was given. It's not my problem you didn't follow the discussion prior to that post.

He's an anchor baby, or a Canadian of convenience. Hardly Canadian in any meaningful sense beyond simply have some documents like a birth certificate and passport. At least he can exercise his democratic rights to support the NDP, and perhaps even run for office based on a compelling story of reformation.

Although I have never even implied that Romney's victory is a sure thing (that is your strawman), allow me to make you a counteroffer. If Romney wins, you don't post here for six months. I Obama wins, I will never post here again.

What is it you can't understand? Once is a reference to late-term abortions always being wrong, whether they're carried out once a decade or hundreds of times a years (assuming one accepts the premise of them being wrong, of course). The second comment is a simple statement of fact: that different people have differing opinions of when rights are guaranteed to a person; that reasonable people can disagree over this. This isn't complicated, BigL.

You're doing exactly what you're trying to accuse others of doing. You've created a false premise of religious relativity. You then launch attacks against others of being bigoted when they reject this false premise, and accuse them of self-aggrandisement. What's really happening is that is that it is you who is practising verbal virtuosity by falsely accusing others of bigotry when rejecting your false premise. The best part? You don't even realise it

So all of a sudden you're now pretending to actually care about the details of a solution to a problem you refuse to actually acknowledge.

Clearly cybercoma would prefer what we saw with the former Soviet Union, where we witnessed 99% voter turnout and near universal support for five-year economic plans.

That is really funny, but it's built on a stupid premise. Romney's explained that he doesn't want to lock box himself into certain commitments about which tax credits to remove or to preserve. He wants to be completely free to make those decisions in negotiations, which is why he isn't giving the "details" at this moment. That website is a great idea for political marketing, though.

The citizenship test is NOT a screen for values. What's the point of getting into details when you not only reject the entire premise due to its lack of perfectibility, but don't even acknowledge the problem being discussed?

Jason Kenney's proposal to broaden his power to deny entry to Canada based on "public policy" grounds is a terrible move. Not Terry Jones nor anyone else should be kept out of the country simply for holding an unpopular opinion. It's a horrible precedent to set. I'm with Ezra Levant on this one.

It seems to be a ridiculous op-ed without any substantiation of its claims. The full text of the agreement can be found here: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/china-text-chine.aspx?lang=eng&view=d Predictably, jacee won't support any of the points she just parroted with this lazy copy-paste post by actually referencing language in the text. She probably didn't even read the entire op-ed. More quality discourse on MLW, it seems.

Perhaps not even then. Consider that Christopher Stevens' father is stating that he doesn't want the death of his son to be "politicised", and that the mother of Glen Doherty (one of the former Navy SEALs murdered in the Benghazi attack) seemed to chastise Romney for mentioning his meeting with the man years ago once during his campaign. I will concede that this is somewhat tangential, but these are two recent and prominent examples of two people directly affected in the worst possible way, deaths of children, by irresponsible politics (Obama's commitment to a "low profile" presence in Libya). And even after that, they still cling to their leftism. Perhaps BlackDog is the same type of character.

Right, because being concerned about how irresponsible immigration policies which will destroy our society if left alone makes me a crazy guy screaming on a street corner. You're completely missing the point, anyways, which is that as things stand now, we have NO screening based on values. Which is unsurprising, because our country is filled with people like you who struggle to actually articulate Canadian values.

They're not going to have to get used to anything if we don't stand up for our values. Hillary Clinton sat with the OiC in a three day meeting to discuss their "anti-blasphemy" resolution to be submitted at the UNGA. Everywhere we look, there are political attacks against freedom of speech. Barack Obama has also made statements and held positions that are worrying: opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling Clinton vs. Citizens United supporting ownership caps on media, and spending inordinate time condemning and apologising to America's enemies for the free expression of private citizens. Glibly stating that everything will be fine, "just because", isn't a compelling argument. There are real threats out there to this fundamental freedom, and those that wish to destroy this fundamental freedom, from politicians to media personalities to academics to ordinary folks, are very motivated.

Jacee is absolutely a communist. It doesn't take long to realise where he's coming from if you read through her posts, ranting about "corporate greed" while supporting destruction of private property and bullying/intimiaton in the interests of silencing free speech and expression. It also doesn't matter whether or not she realises what she is.

Right, because if perfection can't be guaranteed, there's point doing anything. Great argument.

The way I see it, nobody does a better job delegitimising the left than the left in its own words. I want them to be as candid and as unhinged as possible. I don't think I've ever reported anyone on any board for any reason.

The National Post is a leftist newspaper, for starters. As far as you're concerned, I've seen you many times trying to shut down debate. That's completely expected, considering your political orientation.

Perhaps you should consider that there are more than two possible answers to the question of when life begins. You're assuming an all-or-nothing perspective, where one must either believe that life begins are conception or at birth, without any possible answer for some period of time or occurrence in between those two points in time. That's one opinion. Also, your opinion is at odds with Canada's existing laws, which do not grant rights to unborn children based on viability of life outside of the mother. That's a pretty extreme position that Canada's staked out on this issue, and it's certainly out-of-line with many Canadians.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Certainly leftists are far more likely to cry out for censorship of opinions they dislike, while ignoring far worse behaviour from their own political teammates.

Great argument - since perfection cannot be guaranteed, why bother? There's a phrase you should familiarise yourself with, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Perhaps this mentality is why you are where you are in life?