Figleaf

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings. Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all. And your standard is to report whom ever breaks the rules in your opinion, provided they are on the right of you. The bully tactic of a sissy. Aren't YOU left of me?

I understand very clearly. The distinction lies entirely in the arbitrary, fraudulent definition structure you and your buddy Menard have dreamed up.

FTA -- did you have any specific criticism to make about the way I defined crown privilege?

How would you know? Good retort. Very witty, very droll. How would you know?

How would you know?

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings. Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

Reported.

Well that backfired on you! Your record on this thread so far includes pretending a Zionist Organization of America website is run by Hamas, and being caught in a blatant contradiction about how Hamas came to be. You Lie. I made no such representations. You Lie. I didn't make any representation on this subject, I simply asked what you were trying to say. The record on this thread is very clear that it is you who twists the truth. But actually, I find that completely possible. Why do you feel the need to falsely impute non-existent positions or emotions to me? Don't you understand that doing so is a type of dishonestly? The problem with your assertions has already been noted. You may review the thread if you are still curious. I don't know, and have not asserted, that Israel financed Hamas. Your intense emotionalism on this topic evidently leave you unable to grasp the comments of your interlocutors. Actually, the website you said was Hamas' belonged to a completely different organization. This is a problem you have not yet answered. You Lie. In fact, I don't even regard it as a 'smear' for someone to be a Zionist. There are lots of perfectly acceptable ways and means to go about being Zionist or supporting Zionism. Already did. Q.V. above. Quote one for me then. Lie. Quote any comment in my entire posting history that contains anti-semitism. If you can't then it is proven that you have lied, in a dirty shitty way, AGAIN. Yet another dirty lie. The intellectual cowardice is all on you, making up and imputing positions that other posters don't hold and have never said is dishonest and the sign of a weak argument. Too bad. Your misrepresentations and prevarictions, your walls of dilatory text, and your lies about other posters don't amuse me.

Reported.

Is is math or demographics of which you're woefully ignorant? Or both, I suppose. Oh, I'm not woefully ignorant, and tens of thousands is actually quite conservative, given that the 7% of British Muslims who think 911 and the tube bombings were a good thing amount to around 7000 alone. Christ there are at least ten thousand deaths a year around the globe a year directly attributable to Islam, and they aren't done by one person. Sometimes geometry is the best descriptor. Reading your reply I think: greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. On those grounds I feel perfectly safe corresponding with you. I report posts that appear to be in violation of the rules. I never get "whupped".

You sound like the kind of person who will be liberal until you get mugged. IOW, it is one thing to be a theoretical liberal and quite another to understand the meaning of a liberal society. You sound like the kind of person who fancies the highflown rhetoric of a liberal society but fundamentally you don't understand the principles that underpin it. If the general citizenry cannot be trusted to behave responsibly, what kind of society are you building? Answer: A police state.

Crown privilege is the right of the government and its agents to screw someone over, bankrupt him, jail him, defame him, and get away with it. Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then...Crown Privilege FTA The same? The page you linked to lacked my clarifying and perfectly succinct definition quoted above.

Empires have periods of acceleration and decline within their overall lifespan. For me, it's hard to say whether George Bush represents the beginning of the end, or just a profound crisis.

Who are 'these people'? Name some names. Figleaf aka Curly is one name. Based on what?

Is is math or demographics of which you're woefully ignorant? Or both, I suppose.

And I wonder why he sticks around war zones.

Well said, Parrot.

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

Who are 'these people'? Name some names.

... Are you saying that Hamas did not emerge from the Islamic Association? No of course it did. What I am saying is that it did NOT emerge with Israeli funding or support. Bizarre. Is there any actual purpose to your drivel and self-contradictions, or is it just something you do to entertain yourself?

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

If the argument is for subsidizing children, then it has to be compared to other alternatives such as imported labour. Further, the net benefit of children must be looked at in totality. Sure the children will generate economic value, and thus taxes, but children will also cost to educate and for various beneifts. In addition, children add to the destruction of the environment. What I'm saying that I'd like to see some proof of the "obvious" and "proven" that children are a net benefit. That would be a fascinating line of literature. It would take a lot of research to develop a truly determinative understanding of the question. You'd have to compare the costs of raising kids with the costs of integrating immigrant labor. Another alternative is investing in raising the productivity of a smaller number of workers. In fact, arguably there is a direct opportunity cost apparent right now. The CPC government plans to give thousands of dollars to families for their children, but youths over 18 will get nothing more for education expenses. Data might show that investing $3000 in an 18yr old gives a better return than investing it in a 6yr old.

Charles, you are a prince! I knew about the quote limit, but I think I know now where it all first went astray (after that the attempted corrections no doubt buggered it up more) ... but I'll check the code to be sure as you suggest. Thank you for your help.

Crown privilege is the right of the government and its agents to screw someone over, bankrupt him, jail him, defame him, and get away with it.

There are a large number of self-regulating professions, and many people who encounter their discipline process from outside of the profession react the same way ... that the profession shields its members. It's possible. It may be better or worse at different times in different places in different professions. Sometimes perhaps a profession may harbor a cabal of wrongdoers within it. Sometimes a profession might go on a kick of rectitude and housecleaning. But consider ... complainants' perceptions are not likely to be 100% impartial and unbiased about their own cases, and they approach the professional regulator with a built in skepticism about at least one member. I believe there are probably two sides to this issue with some truth to them. The mob prejudices of sophomores is hardly a convincing argumentum ad populupulus.