bloodyminded

Yeah, why not, eh?

Well, whatever skills and talents Mr. O'Leary possesses (and no doubt he is skilful and talented), he has two fairly bad qualities: 1. His channeling of Gordon Gecko is a pretension, ie a false persona he puts on because it gratifies him to irritate people. Now, we forget, in the age of unremarked, unaccountable personae that this is a sign of poor character. Just because a portion of the semi-literate public (ie Ayn Rand fans) really admire douchebag behaviour doesn't mean that others (ie new Ayn Rand acolytes) need emulate it. Might be the result of bad parenting, but I'm not sure. 2. He's not a thinker, not in any sense outside of the narrow (albeit lucrative) knowledge-base that he has. Polymathy is considered a liability in the Financial Age, because it deals so sparsely with Speculation, von Mises, and other parasitic pursuits. Therefore, he should skip the philosophy, because he gets instantly and jaw-droppingly confused by the simplest concepts: ie His remarks, made multiple times by my count (and without attempting to, so it may well be something he's repeated a thousand times to his shell-shocked wife and sycophantic colleagues): "Mixing morality and Business is evil." OK...not even for the sake of the Ayn Rand fans am I going to spell out the problem here. If you cannot instantly see the glaring contradiction which totally destroys his own argument....then you should go back to your unremarkable life, pretend that you're one day going to get rich, and stop worrying about such niceties as thought.

"Curbstomping" the "hippies"? Yeesh. Let's not forget what....demographic...is most famous for its love of curb-stompin.'

And I'm in agreement with CPCFTW. That doesn't happen too often!

Yeah, I'd guess we have roughly ten percent.......

Nice catch, eyeball. But it begs the question: why do some posters believe that no one will ever remember anything they've written, and at inopportune moments?

You're right: "I'm glad to hear that they killed some of their own." Jeesh. I missed this entirely; I guess I've got that fabled "outrage fatigue," in which even open bigotry barely even registers anymore.

Ezra is quite right; Mark Steyn was right about the HRCs as well. And I don't even like these smarmy little creeps. In the U.S., Harper's magazine also published the cartoons. What's the problem? Well, we can answer that, thanks to the hindsight of history: no problems. I prefer the American stance on free expression issues. Because what has Canada gained from this? If the HRC's even have a purpose, at the very least I think it's pretty clear they moved well beyond their mandate many years ago.

They're of no consequence. Hell, we can't even accurately condemn China's "communism" anymore (though their totalitarianism remains pretty robust), and there's a lot of noise about Cuban reform as well. The Red Panickers are so desperate now that they're calling what used to be centrist-conservative notions "socialism." But they're going to lose. Even the Tea-Partiers don't want to give up Social Security and Medicare, even if their elected leaders do. The Mixed Economy ideas are winning and are going to win. That's just as it should be.

Wrong. That's the revisionists speaking, the professional left-haters ("drooling obssessives" is the technical term) who have decided to paint all that is bad as "leftist," under the sober theory that the world was a fine place before Marx and Engels came along. Jonah Goldberg shares a lot of responsibility for this...er, thesis. If anyone's interested, several bona fide scholars of fascism have taken him seriously to account with some excellents smackdowns. They themselves point out that castigating right-wing politics as "fascist" has been profoundly erroneous; that fascism is a genuine left-right combination. But that it is on balance more of a right-wing phenomenon.

The non-violent protest, if anything, enrages folks like Bob even moreso.

If my post said nothing, then yours must have been less than zero.

If the radicalized reactionaries among us are to determine the exact parameters of all discussion; if those who, totalitarian-style, brook zero dissent from their elevated and simple-perfect worldviews are the debate-mappers; and if these folks are to circumscribe everyone's premises, as defined by an assumption of unfit conclusions about the performances of nation-states; then yes, under these narrow circumstances your assertion could only be correct. But then, that's by tautology, isn't it?

I suppose not!

Oh, I understand, believe me. I think we're all aware of this sort of foolishness from Saipan.

I agree. The majority of pedophiles--whether they are specifically attracted to boys or to girls--are not defined, sexually, as only pedophiles; they are usually also sexually attracted to adults, and are usually heterosexual. Homophobic myths to the contrary.

..........

Another lurker from Stormfront? Welcome to the (relative) sanity of MLW!

And in fact, the overwhelming mjaority of rapes involve "acquaintance rape." Stranger-rape doesn't even reckon, comparatively speaking. However, I agree with another of Argus's points, which he has reiterated elsewhere: sex with a (teenaged) minor does not constitute "pedophilia."

I remember I felt sad and depressed about the whole thing. Maybe that's why my interest in political matters generally were born that day.

When we think of awful and murderous crimes like 9/11 in the context of geopolitics, there are a lot of sobering facts to consider. Here's an excerpt from a recent piece by Noam Chomsky. http://www.zcommunications.org/using-privilege-to-challenge-the-state-by-noam-chomsky

There were several posters here on this board who felt quite positive about the misunderstood little fellow's awesome "Manifesto," as you may or may not remember. We have. I don't see why we can't think both fanatics have serious problems with their methods to cleanse the world of Evil.

Of course I think the blockade is unjust; further, we've had this discussion before, in which you asked me the same question and received the selfsame answer. I don't know what's more irritating: your assumption that a difference of opinion on the blockade is an automatic delineation of anti-Jewish bigotry...or the fact that you self-evidently do not read my posts...even as you respond to them.

The real question is why you didn't understand the OP.