Figleaf

[

[

[

[

lllll

/

[.

If

nope

The Globe was once an almost-great newspaper, but it is now an embarrassment. Just a few examples or what's wrong: -generaizedl dumbing-down; -one-note, hackneyed, repetitive editorials on international issues; -superficiality in all other editorials; -over-indulged, unrigorous columnists (though with some exceptions); -lame jokey headlines; -picture-squibs or subtitles that contradict the contents of associated articles; -puerile cultural content; -dilatory, distracting story style (it seems the first 1/3 of every article must be spent on 'hooks' or 'flavor' before the writer is able to get to any real content; -totally crappy TV guide; and -Zero quality control (misprinted pages, spelling and grammar errors, and factual inaccuracies abound).

x

[q

[qu

Lack of religion leads to moral relativism of the worst kind. What is your basis for that assertion?

Why do you say it is a falsehood? Because the Liberals are not anti-Israel. Even Iggy's comment is not 'anti-Israel'. Israel is more than the acts of its government. You can condemn a government without disliking a nation. For example, I like and respect America, but revile the Bush administration.

Yes. He was responding to a reporter. That it was made "in passing" (slur or not)....means it was candid. UN-REHEARSED. I would call that a "plus." You called it 'spelling it out', but now admit it was off-hand. Thank you for correcting youself, however belatedly. That comment lacks connection to reality. You say 'Jews', but Harper said 'Israel'. And there is no scrap of evidence that the Liberals are anti-Israel. 'Spelling out' suggests he supplied a level of detail or fact which in fact he did not (how could he, after all, since it was false). You chose the incorrect description 'spell out' because it sounded better, but it distorted the facts.

So? So, you seem to have a way of posting stuff aligned more with your biases than with the facts. In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed. You seem to choose incorrect terms to support your poor arguments. I call you on it. They were bullsh*t.

You mean like when Bob Rae left the NDP because of it's anti-Israeli policies and zealots? Or the departure of Cotler's wife, as well as Indigo's President, because of the shamelessness of the Liberal Party? It was Cotler's wife whose choice preciptated my analysis. Now I wonder where that leaves Irwin ... still a Liberal, does his wife think him a race-traitor?

So there's a program on the Showcase channel called "Rent a Goalie" in which the main character is called "Cake" by his Italian friends. Am I the only one who finds this somewhat ... off? I mean ... what's next? Sikh characters called "Raghead?" Mexican's nicknamed "Spic"?

1. I don't regard that as a useful question at all. It seems to suggest that a comprehensively perfidious fabrication might be justified on a basis of utility. I would disagree. I'd disa ree with that as well. Anything that detracts from mankind's accurate view of its environment and circumstances diminishes its capability to survive and prosper. 1. So what? 2. Neither can religion. Neither can religion, except imaginarily.

That's just stupid. The monks had no bombs.

[

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing. Yes but his point in asking the question was as a counterpoint to the objection religious people have to the idea of the universe 'just existing'. If God can exist without being created, why could the universe not just exist without being created? I'll put a slightly different spin on it ... which seems more likely to spontaneously occur: a chthonic ball of energy and matter, or a perfect all-powerful consciousness?

The unique horror of homicide bombing is the randomness, the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter. What in heaven's name does 'homicide bombing' mean?? Anyway, your aesthetic revulsion to a particular manifestation of violence is completely irrelevant to the point here. These measures were not preceded by some pretty despicable acts, such as those I described above? If 'homicide bombing' is your amusing new term for suicide bombing, then yes, usually (we are told at least) the criminal act of house demolition is preceded by a criminal act of suicide bombing. What of it?

Good point ... I wish I'd thought of it before making the poll.