bloodyminded

It's in a substantive way a simialr premsie to "Seinfeld." And Larry David was one of that show's writers, as well as its creator.

Or how about this from ol' Winston: It maybe doesn't quite rise to the level of psychopathy, since he magnanimoulsy considers the possibility that the unimportant Savages won't be killed, merely terrorized by the Imperial behemoth. But it's grotesque enough, and as is open admission of terrorism.

No it's not a disingenuous ploy--such massive and overwhelming conspiracy theories notwithstanding (all those Fat Cat scientists and whatnot ); it's shorthand. And understood as such. When we go "to war with Libya," are we specifically at war with the Libyan people? After all, there is no Libya without it's people; that's mostly what "Libya" means.

True, which is why they deserve very little of the blame when policy goes wrong (unless there are specific failures which are only theoer own...but I don't think that's generally the case).

I think it's pretty rare for a television writer to have the kind of comic timing and talent that David has. Hell, he's a lot funnier than Jerry Seinfeld, for my money. At any rate, it's pretty predictable that the show would occasionally arouse some outrage. Quality comedy often does, as it navigates political and moral lines that more conventional, less-inspired comedy usually does not.

Not "at least for some"; unquestionably only for some. Unless you wish to propose a pretty wanton conspiracy theory. Like those who were nowhere near any vandals, and had nothing to do with them; or those who actively opposed them, telling them to stop their behaviour...that they were all secretly in on it!

Excellent masturbation material, no doubt.

Certainly, you're right. Bubber's point was that M. Dancer has long mocked Layton and his cancer, and for a time was continually adding "(fighting bravely)" in parentheses to underline how hilarious it all is. Bubber was simply quoting him.

Both systems are prone to certain problems. But every set-up is. There are no exceptions. Yes, I know, it's an elementary truism. But still.

Remiel was merely pointing out that "Support our Troops" not infrequently translates into "Support Political Foreign Policy." Practically everyone "supports the troops," so perhaps such bumber stickers are as banal as "honk if you're horny." I have no problem with them whatsoever, just to clarify, and to pre-empt any possible outrage from tantrum-prone quarters.

Uh, some of them are, quite decidedly, considered crimes, including by our own leadership (and presumably by our Business class). I think the argument you're trying to make is that when we get involved in a military campaign, it should never be considered a crime. And no worries; it never is. By some incredible, ahistorical coincidence, we and our allies do not commit international crimes. It's quite impossible. But ok, back to the point: I erroneously believed I was uttering a basic, uncontroversial opinion: that the majority of criminals are not, individually, a monumental problem to society; and that the majority of criminals (the vast majority) are normal human beings like everybody else. I was wrong to think obvious truths like this are "uncontroversial," obviously. I guess it upsets the cherished "black hats/white hats" self-serving myths--statist by definition (and therefore odd for self-described "libertarians" to adhere to)--plagiarized from children's tales and Manichean religious admonishments.

But you have declared elsewhere that Shakespeare will fast fade from historical significance as well.

Also, all sorts of non-religious beliefs are closely related to this aspect of human thought.

If they thought in terms of linear cause-and-effect, they might consider the possibility that the production of feces is the purpose of both the dog, and of us. Hell, for I know it could be true.

How was my retort out of context? You said they were lazy then, and are lazy now; cowardly then, and cowardly now. Go ahead, educate us on the deeply-coded nuance that I overlooked in your subtle remarks.

Here, here. The Keepers of the Peace have cornered themselves, rhetorically.

She's a leftwing political polemicist whose books outsell Coulter's--not an important consideration as to quality or acumen from my point of view, but evidently you consider it part of the evidence for exactly that.

I always suspected fascism was too, too easy.

Are you under the delusion that there is one single thing that is Forever...and it is majority Conservative rule?

Ah, we've got another one! Supporting the leaders is fine...then a person should speak his mind. But criticizing him??? There's no place for that kind of behaviour in a country like Canada; so critics should all "STFU." That Atwood has some friggin' nerve, I tells ya!

Then Harper with his "Quebec nation" bit must be "soft on separatism" as well. As are any who defend this, as I suspect you're about to do.

How come when people want to say really ridiculous and bigoted things, they always believe they're bravely battling the forces of political correctness?

I don't see any reason to take it seriously.

Are you serious? You think this is evidence that what she says is worthwhile? You must be a big fan of Naomi Klein, then.

You don't have to convince me; I'm not a religious man. I'm just saying I wouldn't the government enacting any laws against (or for) religion.