bloodyminded

there was no comparison made between the two countries. The point made was that a boycott was bigoted, by definition.

This is all quite beside the point. I was responding directly to a point about what people do and don't concede in debates. It'd help if you actually knew a thing or two about basic English sentences, of course....

Ah. so "bleeding hearts," we're to understand, means "those who love everything Muslims do." That's your definition? Or Raza's? Or both of you? Or are there any other aspects to this brand new use of an old anti-liberal slur? Uh, you're stating your opinion, and I'm stating mine. Now, I know it's thunderously outrageous, and quite baffling, that anyone might disagree with you.......

The Israeli military conducted a commando night raid. Anyone who wouldn't try to defend themselves would be crazy. So...you believe an inquest would be useless...and meanwhile you'll take the official Israeli version of events as accurate? Why? Why is your opinion so clearly aligned with fact? So you take it for granted that the Israelis are "innocent," then. Based on their say-so. So what are you whining about my stance for? Right. They shouldn't have an inquest; they shouldn't go on the defensive. they shouldn't do anyhting, except wallow in the infignant and sycophantic support of you, who takes it as a given that they are in the right. You ask for proof....and then you say you don't want any. It would be a great start, wouldn't it? Israel is a democracy in which state interference of that sort is not as simple as you'd think. (Same goes with Turkey, by the way./..but you assume Turkish authorities are lying. But not Israeli officials! Gods, no!) So it would certainly turn the conversation further in Israel's favour. And if the two coroner's reports showed contradictory results, then a third party is needed to try to navigate the issue. That's how it's normally done with coroner's reports. Yes, in fact you're right, maybe turkish officials are lying. Maybe Israeli officials are lying. "Found" by whom? If you're talking about the UN report, you're omitting some crucial "findings," now, aren't you? If you're talking about the official Israeli report, then you are taking as fact what is nothis is apparently very bothersome to you...except when it's your own tactic. And you keep whining about how Israel is always right, and how everyone's picking on it for no reason. You're not alone, either...though you are part of a fringe, sychophantic minority, to be sure.

Certainly. Bonam brought it up, not me; I just responded.

Just to clarify, Michael (and my convoluted style was likely at fault): I do agree that political discussion doesn't happen in public so very much. (If it used to be different, it must have been before my time.)

Bob tried! But yes, failed...for the very reasons Michael Hardner pointed out.

Honestly, this only adds to my confusion. I took it for granted that my situation was totally un-unique. Consider: Yes, most of my friends have leaned leftwards politically, give or take; but not all of them. (And some...i couldn't even say, really). One of best friends was a big supporter of the Iraq War, lamented Canada's error, and really admired the "neocons" as great "idealists." () Me and my sisters are both idiot lefties, but my parents are both conservative...not far right, no, but certainly conservative (small and large "C"). The rare times where political issues have been discussed in various workplaces, the views have seemed very politically diverse indeed. I took it for granted that this was normal life for everybody...at least, outside of peculiarly one-note voting regions, like Alberta.

Since you are--by "definition"--a "bleeding heart"...I'm not sure why you'd make some distinction between "bleeding hearts" and other (ie good) liberals. Or why Raza would, for that matter. Oh, right...she misspoke, having insufficiently thought her words through.

Good points, but I nonetheless find this all a bit odd, even difficult to believe. It's not that I hop about discussing politics all the time--rarely, in fact. But I have always been surrounded by people of different political persuasions; not through effort, either, but simply because that's the way it is...which is really my point. So uiltimately, I don't see any important distictions, on a personal level, between lefties and righties. My own lived experience informs me that such divisions scarcely exist.

Yes, we have two points of opinion: the flotilla eyewitnesses, and the Israeli military who were also there...and who aren't speaking about it, and are refusing an inquest. As all innocent folks are wont to do. It's also based on a Turkish coroner's report. But ok, maybe Turkish officials are lying, including the coroner's report, and the flotilla eyewitnesses are lying...and the Israeli military are telling the truth (if they deny it...which so far they have not, not explicitly). An independent investigation might go some way to clearing it up. But of the agents we're speaking of here, a certain specific one of them has refused.

It seems I might have made a small error: he may have been shot point blank in the face, either rather than in the back of the head (or possibly in addition). It sound smore horrific, but the distinction isn't of crucial importance, I don't think.

First of all, the onus is on the extrajudical executioners to make the case...not those who wonder about the necessity of murdering a lying-prone, unarmed man in the back of the head. Second, once he's so thoroughly disabled...well, i would love to hear the justification? I was responding directly to a post...odd that you didn't take that post to task for the subject matter.

Oh please. Look at the posts of those whom Bud is debating. What you're insisting is that bud's occasional remarks about Palestinian crimes are worthless and insincere...whereas the practically zero concessions from his opponents of any Israeli wrongdoing is of no consequence. Why the double standard?

So if there were an academic boycott of Iran, stated as action against the policies of the government, that would be "discrimination based on national origin," and would constitute "bigotry" against the Iranian people? Then we disagree.

I don't believe my view could have been much more clear. To quote, If that's advocacy, it's about the worst I could conceive, I think.

It had a few scenes of real suspense and terror, really well done. But I hated the twist. I thought it strange and completely unbelievable, and really misconceived.

Yes, that's my point: you believe that all economic problems stem from taxes used for the working poor/lower income folks.

From the OP: "Despite," eh?

OK, but now you're shifting your arguments around. But tax money goes to a lot of things besides aiding the poor. Why is that one your only objection? The outsourcing was not demanded by the working poor; it was demanded by the wealthy businesses who wished for cheaper labour. Are the wealthy the only people you feel should not be taking "personal responsibility" for their own actions? Why hold them to lower standards than you do "the lazy poor"?

And yet they continue to increase their wealth. So the system is a success by your own standards. "People like me." You mean those of us who don't think Ayn Rand was a genius. Bunch of heretics. Since you are confessing (albeit accidentally) that you have no idea of what I think about it, it's odd that you'd invent my own opinions for me. But if it makes you happy.... The government and big business are quite inextricably combined, so your notion of some combative relationship is misinformed. There are no free lunches in some mythical market that doesn't exist and never has. As it stands, "the market" depends absolutely on public monies, notably in the realm of tax-based infrastructure. You're letting a simplistic view of economic theory trump reality itself. Why, I don't know.

Going on a pirate-hunting expedition? Sounds dubious.

Yes, the more that the poor victimize the rich--via China, I guess is the thesis--the greater the rich's gains. An odd theory, but ok....

I'm not speaking for others (nor for "others," whatever distinction you're trying to draw by use of selective quotation marks). Your post speaks for itself.

Exactly.