ScottSA

Speaking of logical fallacies...naw, never mind...you've already been banned a bunch of times for this same kind of trolling.

Nope. I just don't play with trolls. Especially trolls too dumb to miss rather obvious nuances.

I think the expression is "a transgendered sue-happy basket case is a danger to any organization." I could be wrong, though. I may also be on her list of targets by now...

So what? How is that relevant? Why should "government" come to help these people? Why don't they move or find new jobs? Christ, how did we ever get to the point that people lose a job and then sit and cry, waiting for someone else to come and rescue them? If you lose a job, find another. If you have to move, then move. If you have to change fields, then change fields. If you have to sell your house, then sell your house, or commute, or do whatever it is has to be done. What has happened to our society that even breeds this defeatist attitude? How did this country ever get built in the first place? I can just imagine the first sod busters...."Dear Upper Canada: We had a bad harvest this year accch. Our sod hut lacks heat, the potatos are goin' bad, and the cow ain't milkin' right, aye? But we don't want to move. Come and give us a wee pittance, will ye?

She's a lawyer. She does her own sewage...oops, I mean suing.

You hunt ducks with a rifle? Just how good a shot are you anyway?

I didn't see the "overwhelming consensus" mantra either. Isn't that like saying the Lord's Prayer without mentioning "Lord?" Fortunately for Jazzer, carbon credit indulgences can be bought at the nearest Gorean wicket, so his soul can be saved from the Fiery Lake of CO2.

I have an idea! Naw, that would involve going to work, and work would take away from time spent on the barracades demanding more welfare. Silly me.

Well, let's back up a bit. First, you have rightly argued numerous times that religion is not a race, yet here you seem to be arguing the opposite. Second, Rue, for example, and probably you too, would argue strenuously that the west ought not be "white" only, nor "Christian" only, yet at the same time you defend Israel's right to be Jewish only. I happen to agree, but merely because of my Machiavellian observation that the world needs an outpost of civilization in that swamp of Arab Islamic barbarism; not because of some inherent "right." Third, I know it's hard to ascertain people's motives online, but I think what is sometimes seen as antisemitism can range from angry personal reaction of the moment, to a quest for historical truth (I'm far from convinced, for example, that all holocaust questioners are anti-semitic), to an intellect weak enough to buy into Islamic agitprop, like the gag-me-with-a-spoon-LOL! brigade. And I'm sure there are many other reasons too, that don't involve what would be identified as "anti-semitism." I know, for example, that I'm often tempted to light into Rue's bombastic sarcasm and double standards, but only from a personal distaste of longwinded and largely meaningless diatribe; nothing to do with Judaism.

I guess I'd rather be taxed in bananas. After all, no one would have cared as much is brown paper bags full of bananas had gone missing...maybe there is something to be said for electing Liberals...

Why? Is university teaching entirely different macroeconomic theses these days? Outsourcing is excellent for individual businesses; I tripled my income in a fell swoop doing it. And while there may be compensatory benefits to my country, the jobs I outsource benefit this country in only one way: transferring wealth from the US, UK, and Australia, to Canada. Unfortunately it also means that some of what would otherwise be coming here goes to India, for a net loss of potential wealth to Canada. In my case no wealth is transferred from the 3rd world to Canada, simply because no-one, whether it be China or the Tigers, can afford North American expertise. Nor does Canada get any other benefit from my outsourcing. The upshot is that I gain a personal (or corporate) gain, but it's a short term gain; it'll last for a few decades, barring global catastrophe...certainly long enough to see me out...but it's a long term loss for the country. Manufacturing, both by nature and by scale is far worse, with multiplier effects like the loss of industrial capacity, to mention only one. Will I stop doing it? Nope. Why would I? Treehuggers will keep driving noxious VW buses painted with toxic chemicals, Gore will keep flying around the globe with a CO2 trail many small countries only wish they could produce, and people everywhere and always will follow the money. But the funny thing is, that for me to stop outsourcing would actually be worse than continuing, because at least I'm attracting wealth here that would otherwise not be attracted. I'd even like to think I'm creating value-added, but that's stretching it a bit. Words are fleeting, unless they create or feed social opinion. Which is, I suppose, why I post here. But as a longterm solution, outsourcing is a net negative to the outsourcing country, and to the outsourcing company. As the labour market eventually reaches global equilibrium (as it will according to the globalist thesis), the labour economy of foreign outsourcing will dry up, but the native capabilities will have transferred. The outsourcer will eventually lose everything it once had, while the out sourcee will have gained everything. Of course this is all theoretical, which is why I sleep well at night. Things like global depressions (one of which may well be right around the corner), and wars, have a habit of plowing the playing field in readiness for a completely different game.

Your point?

Actually, the holocaust had nothing to do with the formation of the UN, and everything to do with the formation of Israel. The UN was a second attempt at the League of Nations; a longtime aim of the liberal (in the original sense) economic globalists. It had to do with the abolition of war, to be sure, but not an end to it by means of Chapter VII so much as the old thesis Fukuyama dredged up and dusted off; that war won't occur if there is more downside than upside to it. The UN was always intended to be dominated by the classic liberal components in the west, and the increasingly strident radicalism coming out of today is the best argument for that intent i can think of. Unfortunately the classical liberalists were so strong at the time that the current state of affairs wasn't even foreseen. We now have all effective power in the hands of the US and a few hangers on, while the entire corrupt, but fortunately powerless, machinery of the rest of the UN is geared against the US. The US has less and less to gain by being a member of this monkey's talkshop. It's like Indian affairs in Canada...paying for groups to diss you. The more money Canada gives the Indians, or the US gives the UN, the louder get the whines and howls of rage.

Thank you Mikey *patting you on the head*. Trot along, now.

You surely must have more subtlety than to interpret my point in that way. Did you miss something while reading it?

Like Germany could use another Hitler.

This is the intellectual level of the average liberal doctrinaire.

I'll get right on that Mikey.

Nonsense. You know it very well. It's a political football, like the fake ozone "crisis" or the Y2k "crisis" or the old growth "crisis." Or, for that matter, like the "brutal Afghan winter" or "Iraq spiralling into civil war," or any number of media fed frenzies western society seems willing to buy into at the drop of a hare-brained thesis.

See? There you go again. I have yet to hear keng advocate anything remotely like this, yet you have no qualms about imputing it to him. Has he accused you of wanting to shoot people? If he did, would it be fair if he cited other atheists who shot people and claimed that if you had your druthers, you'd be all about shooting people too? Obviously neither should be "covered up," but let's be realistic. When we discuss the issue of rape, we don't dredge up some obscure case of a woman raping a little boy and claim that women are just as much of a problem when it comes to rape, right? We can be sure that you don't, anyway. We rightly attach more weight to males raping women. To do otherwise would simply be a farce. I'm sure I don't have to hold your hand and walk you through the nuances here, between an obscure event in barbarian tribal Christianity in Nigeria, and a global Islamic phenomenon reaching from the Russian "stans," to the horn of Africa, to Michigan, to across Europe and Asia. Do I?

Oops. In light of August's new evidence, I think it's fair to say that it has graduated from "drive by" to "highly probable." At the very least she/he/it is a loose cannon, errrr, so to speak.

Nope. I don't think you even begin to get it.

Just a drive by smear, based on probability.

What utter nonsense. In the absence of any evidence at all that "fundies" want to hunt after witches and practice warped African tribal "Christianity" in North America, you simply impute it, and then go to the astounding lengths of fabricating an antidote. Lets see if I can do the same thing in reverse...hmmm.... "If atheists had their way, they'd shoot all believers just like Stalin did. The only thing that stops them is the Godliness of the Christian ethos." See? We could do this all day...just make up assertions, then "prove" them by supplying a made up reason why they don't obtain.

Well well well. Here she is again.