Figleaf

Not obvious?Figleaf, I enjoy reading your posts here. Why? Because I have an open-mind (I hope) and I don't always know where your argument will lead. An argument that George W. Bush organized the destruction of the World Trade Center leads to a dead end. Life is too short to waste time going down dead ends. We have all met people who make such pointless, dead-end arguments in our life. We listen once, and then ignore them. I just don't get how that differs in any way from the distaste I get in dealing with Ricki Bobbi -- it seems like his mind can never change, he's always totally predictable, and he doesn't appear to mentally interact with the challenges made to his positions. But can this be a basis for censoring him? I don't think so, unless we're more comfortable than I think is safe with a very slippery slope.

C'mon Betsy, you don't believe that everything Ignatieff says is gospel, do you? Anyway, it's a big job and if someone 'didn't get it done' that hardly means they won't try.

I haven't heard anything about prominent Liberals speaking out. Sounds like the prominent Tories who were speaking out prior to the last election on Harper. They turned out to be puffs of smoke once Harper won. Of course jdobbin hasn't heard anything. It's easy to turn a deaf ear to news you don't want to hear. You are right Betsy. Warren Kinsella is definitely one prominent Liberal who has spoken out against this move. Link. Anybody want to add more? 1. Warren Kinsella is no longer a prominent Liberal. He's now a fringe hack. 2. As happens suspiciously often, Ricki, your link goes nowhere. 3. Reading this thread I have yet to see any explanation of why this move will hurt the Liberals. The Libs weren't going to beat Mackay, but and now they get Green credibility at zero cost. I'd like to hear someone express what they think is the downside there.

Suppose? What could possibly be even remotely not legal about it? And what do you think it says about the democratic process? Frankly, I don't get your comment at all.

Please provide a list of such cases. Here's ten. Margaret Wente column January 18, 2007 Jeffrey Simpson column February 13, 2007 Rick Salutin March 2, 2007 Jeffrey Simpson column March 13, 2007 Jeffrey Simpson column March 14, 2007 Rex Murphy column March 17, 2007 Jeffrey Simpson column March 21, 2007 John Ibbitson column March 21, 2007 Rex Murphy column March 24, 2007 Margaret Wente column April 5, 2007 No, that won't do at all. First, this list of names proves nothing -- what did they say in those columns? How about some links? Second, these are columnists, tasked to give their own opinions. I'm talking about the newspaper's editorial stance.

Back up? No. None required.

Wolfowitz... Wolfowitz ... where do I know that name from? Oh, wait, wasn't he part of the cabal that led the U.S. into illegal war in Iraq, on false premises and totally for nothing, at a cost of thousands of US military lives (and counting)? And now he's buying nookie with World Bank funds? That's great.

Hmmm, and fellatial wasn't overstepping the bounds of civility? Right. Please provide a list of such cases.

I doubt it. Why don't you stick to things you actually know, rather than making yourself look silly by spouting inanities ... OH, wait, if you did that, you'd never get to post at all. Reported. Oh yeah?

Way to blame the victim there, Argus.

What you really mean is that you can't, [blah blah passive-aggressive insult blah]... No, no, I really mean it was too ludicrous to even bother refuting. Even before you get to the content fallacies, structurally/conceptually it's a mismatch to the thing you're trying to analogize with.

FYI Forum Rules: "POSTING CONTENT All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. " http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17 Reported. just kidding ... someone had to say it.

Okay I'll bite (no pun intended) what do you mean the G & M is 'fellatial' It would be difficult to explain without overstepping the bounds of civility. Let's just say they usually kiss up to anything tory.

Yes, and no doubt you took the same benevolent view of things when that happened. *snort* The truth is that the Greens, as a fringe party with little infrastructure and many nominees acclaimed, probably attract certain types of left-extremists the same way the Reform/Alliance party attracted certain types of right-extremists. To a certain extent, this fact represents a truth about each of these parties, but only a partial truth, since Canadian parties really are very leader-focussed.

But it seems to me there's an obvious difference between someone who believes George W. Bush ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center and someone who defends Stephen Harper as the greatest Prime Minister in Canadian history. Okay, that difference is obvious to you, but quite honestly it's not obvious to me. Can you elaborate?

Wow. Dancer, would have thought you could tell the difference between a grammatical sentence and an incoherent string of digits and characters. Guess I was wrong.

Actually Martin, he was comparing Harper to Hitler. Which is also going a bit too far. No need to worry though. Clearly a crackpot not acting on any comprehension of the facts. If you read Margrace's post further you see that he says the Germans did not know Hitler. *But* Hitler put out that Mein Kampf before he was elected to anything. A book which let German's know all they needed to know. Yes I realized that he intended to insult Harper... Oh that is such CLASSIC Ricki Bobbi -- Posts chock full of obtuse insensitivity to irony or humor of any kind.

That statement is too ludicrous to even bother refuting. Well why don't you try anyway? Because ... That statement is too ludicrous to even bother refuting. Do you need it repeated a few more times before it sinks in?

FYI Forum Rules: "POSTING CONTENT All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. " http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

I doubt it. Why don't you stick to things you actually know, rather than making yourself look silly by spouting inanities ... OH, wait, if you did that, you'd never get to post at all.

No, it's not a "right". What do you imagine you are saying? If you are saying equality is not a right, I don't understand. It's in the Charter and the courts enforce it -- sounds like a 'right', don't you think? That statement is too ludicrous to even bother refuting.

Just so I understand here, Rue. Are you saying that Hamas did not emerge from the Islamic Association?

Do you mean this ?

Cite??

Why has ScottSA included a false reference to Dion in the title of this topic? Falsehoods seem to be the prefered content for Conservatives to post around here. It's not surprising ... integrity has never been a tory strong point.