Figleaf

!!! Are you really trying to tell us you're incapable of discerning from the context which of those definitions is applicable? Why would you denigrate your own intelligence in that way? Or is it just possible you're raising a jejune objection simply to be contrary?

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) wow, 2 false statements in one short sentence! 1. Your own sources confirm that 'pre-emptive' amounts to starting it, so that's not false. 2. Senior Israeli officials are on record acknowledging that the Arab rhetoric in '67 was pretty much empty.

[

There's little doubt this was an anti-semitic act. It will be interesting to see what evidence links it specifically to Hezbolah or Iran.

My reason goes the other way. As a liberal I don't want to be lumped in with the Liberals. Brighten up

[

As I already noted, probably because you sense you're on the losing side on this matter. 'Kissing' isn't the k-word your ass needs.

Yes. And your challenge was a total non-sequitur ... I never asserted 'the work of atheists' as the point. I said the ascendancy of reason. Your comment distorted mine. Accepted. Gee, I'm so sorry I didn't let you get away with a slippery rhetorical ploy. FYI, every discussion you're in includes a self-important pillock.

People who disagree with stupid ideas? Shocking! Clearly it's you who doesn't understand PR. It means 'proportional representation', and pure STV (single transferable vote) is not, in fact a PR system. And what, pray tell, is my "agenda"? (BTW, don't PR advocates have an agenda?) Oh, bugger off. How 'bout dealing with my criticisms instead of spewing (manque) ad hominems? And YOU accuse ME of having an agenda to support a particular party!?! Sleazy knee-dip special pleading will be the end of that party, and good riddance.

Oh my gosh....who do you think put an end to the inquisitions? Have they ended? You're deliberately distorting my comments, probably because you sense you're on the losing side on this matter. Please feel free to get back to me if you're interested in a sensible discussion.

So what? That makes no difference to my original point. And besides, you're wrong. Israel started the 1967 war. You'd do better to avoid posting on subjects you're ignorant about. Thanks for the advice, but they merely pre-empted an invasion by their neighbours. Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.)

No, it is not simple. It is ambiguous. I give it a 0 out of 3 until there is clarity. define: "society" "equal opportunity" define: "poor" and "wealthy" "ignorant" and educated" "isolated" and "influential" "opportunities" define: "success" http://www.thefreedictionary.com

It's Enlightenment elevation of reason that lead there, NOT Christianity. Christianity resisted every step of the way. If it weren't for the ascendancy of reason, Christians would still be burning witches, dying from flus, living in squalor, and killing eachother over the Immaculate conception. Please learn more about history before wasting more of our time. Yes. Without religion's deceptions, diversions and excuses for inhuman cruelty we'd have progressed much more quickly.

1. Atheism didn't lead to their crimes; totalitarian communist ideology (combined with nasty dispositions) did that. 2. Athiesm is an element of communism. Communism is not about atheism. 3. Plenty of atheists are not communists. 4. Only someone ignorant of even a smattering of moral and political philosophy could fail to appreciate that communism and athiesm are not at all the same thing. Or, perhaps someone who cares more for supporting a particular position than he cares for facts, reason, or truth. Absolutely, except it would be for God or the church rather than the state.

[

Of course I've heard of them. Clearly you have little grasp of their histories. Atheism didn't lead to their crimes; totalitarian communist ideology (combined with nasty dispositions) did that.

But it's not a valid news story because of hte lack of public outrage. The CBC created this story in an attempt to MAKE a story. Wow! We rarely see someone so biased that a simple and accurate report of a minister's actual statement causes him to whine like that. You exceed all prior absurdity. It's the Liberal party. Correct usage will (help) alleviate your appearance of being uninformed or ignorant.

[

So what? That makes no difference to my original point. And besides, you're wrong. Israel started the 1967 war. You'd do better to avoid posting on subjects you're ignorant about.

The headline was a perfectly reasonable reflection of the comments Mackay made. Some biased people just can't take hearing the truth about their tory heroes.

Trolls are eliminated once a sufficient amount of complaints have been raised. I hope you mean a sufficient number of complaints judged to be valid ones.

There weren't hardly any atheists around at those times to accomplish those things. It fell to the better sorts of religious people by default. I don't think you have amply demonstrated that it was the religion that caused those choices, nor certainly that agnosticism or atheism would have failed to reach such conclusions. Meanwhile we do know that religion has been used to justify atrocities whereas atheism or agnosticism have not.

I think I do realize that, to an unusual extent. And I've knowingly and deliberately trained myself to recognize and avoid it.

[

The more obvious question is why make that promise in the first place? Answer: Just like Mackay's promise to Orchard, they're willing to promise anything to get elected and don't care about being honest.