Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ScottSA

  1. Really? Harper in a blind rage? What tipped you off? Did Harper scratch his left cheek? Clear his throat? I haven't seen Harper in a blind rage. What does it look like?
  2. Condensed top it's unadorned particulars, this post says: 'the west sends conflicting signals between rule of law and multicult, and people will be people.' Of course, coming from Rue, it couldn't stop there, but had to rumble dustily along with all sorts of streetcorner psychology, confused concepts (multicult = democracy etc), and a few kicks at Keng.
  3. This video reminds me of a practise in India; beggars wait for a well heeled car to come by, throw their daughter in front of it (not son, of course, because he's worth more for sale), and claim damages. I can't believe you would actually post something that clearly represents the opposite of the scam you're trying to fabricate here. This is so obviously a setup that I don't know how it could be made more so. BTW, do all Indian women have pottymouth like that? I thought the residential schools were supposed to teach manners...at least in between burying cadavers in the backyard and sexually assaulting everything that twitched.
  4. I see the inanely shallow analysis of yours is not confined to religion. Do you treat all topics with cartoonish simplicity?
  5. Oh Dobbin is doing nothing new...he does it three times a day. He's pissed because the Tories hulled the Good Ship HMS SinkaLib, again, leaving it floundered, listing to port, and dead in the water, so the best he can do is try to start a mutiny on the privateers. It seems to have backfired, what with Dobbin backed up against the mast with a dozen cutlasses trimming his beard...
  6. You're talking in the first paragraph about so-called "enlightened self-interest," a Pearsonian thesis if ever there was one. Theoretically, of course, you're right; when there is an alignment of interests, a common goal, actions can coincide in a win-win situation. The most obvious example I can think of is the Allied-Soviet alliance of 1942-45. But built into that very example is a dialectic of sorts...the convergence of interest was against someone else, and part of the alliance was a bully in his own right, by your own criteria. The problem with your military analogy is that his buddies DO back him up, in the military arena, but not in the international arena. In fact, the strong can't even get it together to act in the latter case; witness Ethiopia, Manchuria, Iraq. What you're really saying is that if the past of least resistence leads to cooperation, cooperation works just fine. The trouble is that while a liberal trade regime seems in the interests of all, it's not. Not when BoogaBooga in Swatziland looks around and notices that HoogaBooga in Shitziland has lots of diamond mines and a weak army, and no one is really paying attention at the moment...
  7. What rot. You obviously don't have the slightest historical background.
  8. This has got to be the silliest "study" I've seen in a while, and I actually used to review feminist studies, so it's got some stiff competition in the silly department. One could as easily draw the same conclusion based on consumption of fresh fruit, or meat, given that the US also eats more of that; or on energy consumption; or miles travelled per capita; or any of a plethora of things. The "author" is just doing the usual European America-bashing and stupidly trying to draw a correlation between religion and crime, by virtue of the fact that the US has more of it. This year, anyway; I daresay if the 1930s, 40s, 5os, 60s, and 70s were included in the "study," we'd find a few more crimes in the USSR, Germany, China, and Cambodia...and only one of those can be gotten rid of by means of his other careful parsing (developed world).
  9. The above post sounds like Gore Vidal on steroids.
  10. Interesting way of arguing that it's actually bad that Christians commit fewer crimes. Were you bullied a lot in school, Jenny?
  11. Sorry, I don't believe you. I suppose next you'll tell me you're the princess of darkness too? I need proof; not just more empty claims.
  12. Ahhhh...the up-and-coming Cindy Sheehan of the Global Warming hoopla? Future leader of Code Stink, which will adopt huge huge bulbous beaks in remembrance of the Dodo bird; one of the first casualties of Global Warming and/or flintlock rifleswhateverGlobalwarmingisstillHoRriBlE!!!!!!
  13. Prove that you exist. To me. Here. Now. You can't.
  14. That's exactly the irony of the GW hysteria. The left is all in a tizzy as to why the evil conservative menace won't do something NOW! to stop the sky from falling, or at least from eking up a degree or two over the next century. After all, we'll just change jobs, and new technologies will bloom forth creating new green jobs and we'll live happily ever after and then some. That's how it sounds from the safety of a so-far secure job, anyway. But when the actuality hits home..."oh you mean MY job?" ...it's a very different story. Then it's the evil capitalists uprooting jobs and taking them to the squalor of Asia, because, after all, Asia can pollute all it wants under Kyoto, and eco-regulations and the unions don't make it impossible to do business. The left should realize that there are costs to all the do-gooding they have in mind. Real costs that will hit them personally, and simply wearing hemp sandals and pasting "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers of their cars won't be enough. And they should realize that asking the "government" to help means that they have to pay for it themselves, through taxes. I honestly don't think many of them actually get that.
  15. I have read many fascinating books, readable and otherwise (Das Capital and Mein Kampf are far from readable), and you are simply not correct in equating the nemeses of history with "bullying." Claiming a Rouseauian stag hunt as a universal truth has got us all in a lot of trouble in the past. Sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not, but claiming it is all the time is damned dangerous; especially if one acts on that assumption. It's the root of the intl relations "collective action" meme, as well as any number of buggered up scenarios, including 50 some years of eastern European enforced collectivity. In fact, some have argued that Marx's ideation stemmed in part from Rousseau's notions of cooperation, and almost without doubt the early socialists were influenced by him. Perhaps the most telling example of the failure of this belief is Fukuyama's end of history thesis, which writ large is nothing but a rehash of classical liberal economic theory; the supposition that the system will self-govern as long as the upside of trade regime maintainance is greater than the downside. After the fall of the USSR, there was a resurgence of this idea; that a liberal globalist trade regime would obtain, eventually leading to global democratisation and global economic equilibrium. In fact it's the cornerstone of Bush's strategic doctrine. Like marxian analysis, it all looks really good on paper, but try explaining to a Jihadist that he'd be better off cooperating in a solution to peace that involves giving up 72 virgins and leaving pizza parlours unmolested, or to an Attila the Hun that things would be so much better if he cooperated with the Romans in finding a solution to the angst of the steppes. Like I said, sometimes cooperation is more effective than competition, but certainly not always; and I would argue that competition is probably more effective in most cases. Against your blanket statement, even one counterexample is needed, and both of us can think of many.
  16. I think most reasonable people would argue that Indians are the ones "interfering with the lives of other Canadians." I thought you were banned, Jenny.
  17. No! StOP!1!!!1!! LimeyS! Go hOMer!1!1!!1!!!1 SpottED OwL!!! HornEdE bUFfaLo! Goner!1!!111!!! AlL GonER!!!!!!! SkY FaLl!!!!! GarBled WramMinG!!!!!!!
  18. That's a false question. A ridiculous one in fact. It's not even a strawman; it's the ashen remains of a strawman. If someone walks down the street on their hands, and sues someone for not hiring them in their present state of mobility, and asserts that walking upside down is a "lifestyle choice," there's a high probability that they're screwed in the head. Call it bigotry, call it unprogressive, call it a kumquat, but chances are that when someone points out that they're screwed in the head, he's right. That's a far cry from arbitrarly calling an entire race violent. It's not even in the same ballpark.
  19. And the above post is called trolling. You are here to cause as much trouble as possible by taking inane positions and arguing them into the ground. One can only wonder why.
  20. He must also be angry that the Liberals signed much the same thing and completely ignored it. He must be angry that we're not angry. What an angry man he must be.
  21. You must equate "progressive" with headinthesandism then? It may be common currency among the left to imagine that men who cut their naughty bits off and wear dresses are "just normal folks like you n' me," but not everyone lives in a neverneverland of radical equivalency.
  22. Nope. What I did is ignore you, as usual. I see no point in responding to insipid trolling of the sort you and your dopplegangers engage in. Toodles.
  23. What are you trying to do? Have Conservatives put words in Harper's mouth? To what end? Who cares if he "accepts" fairy tales? All I care about is that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country over the emperor's new clothes.
  • Create New...