bloodyminded

That I disagree about the flourishing poor and the victimized, deprived lives of the wealthy says nothing at all about where I've been living. And do you think that all the borrowing from China has been done in the name of the poor?

Hear, hear, Argus. And (I imagine and hope you'll agree) it's not a matter of making excuses; it's simply a matter of human understanding and a bit of empathy.

Belittling others won't help you answer even simple question.

No need. You can read your own post, yes? Since when does omitting an indefinite article make a sentence better? This is a question for yourself.

I don't know what you mean by "Wendy's and Brady's bunch," and I'm not sure how common it is, but yes, I can see some sort of rough comparison here if I understand you correctly.

The answer to what? You made two remarks, one of which contradicts the other. If you can't see it, that's not my fault.

Why can't you?

I'm not belittling. I'm reporting the unvarnished truth.

But plenty of Islamist terrorists are relatively modern, "Westernized" as the term goes; and many fundamentalists, afraid to look on women's faces, totally eschew all political and religious violence as in opposition to their faith. This is brought home nicely (and unobtrusively) in, of all things, a British film comedy (maybe "tragicomedy") called "Four Lions." (Which by the way is an awesome movie.) I bring it up only because it's a slightly more complex matter than you seem to be proposing.

Why is it either/or? And even given the writer's own framework: how are any number of government items--certainly including tax cuts--not about "buying your vote with your own money"?

In that case, there wouldn't be more successful and wealthy people right now than ever in the history of all civilization. They are not punished, but rewarded...that's why there's (relatively) so many of them now. First of all, not it's not, that's a logical fallacy; second, "the left" doesn't champion the theory of evolution; it's a scientific consensus. So, the poor are flourishing, and the rich are suffering intense victimization. Alrighty. That's a fascinating hypothesis.

I don't think that's even a serious question. Don't you personally know any people with conservative leanings?

I don't quite know what else they can do. Candidates tend to play, to some degree, to multiple bases. To do otherwise might well be political suicide. American woman quoted an article which posited that Now, I don't know if this is accurate, but it sounds right to me. If Perry's campaign picks up more steam, I think we're going to see him pandering more obviously to other parts of the electorate, and quickly.

Oh, heck, I don't know. I might even have left out "anti-Israel," as it's loaded...though I can understand that part, it's true. (Notice we never hear about "anti-Palestinians"--though there are plenty--instead, they are always the benign-sounding "pro-Israel.") "Protesters Disrupt Classical Music at BBC" doesn't have much bite, but that's probably about what I'd write. But then, what do I know?

True. The very religious of America--and frankly, we're largely talking about conservative Christians in such conversations, rightly or too simplistically--are a pretty potent political force, though I find it hard to believe it's sinister and disturbing in every instance. However, the United States also has a robust liberal/left tradition and a strong impulse towards more secular views.

Yes, and they account for all liberal-minded people, including yourself. Raza's own feminist credentials palce her in the same category, I'm afraid. Instead, she defines it as "those who are too easy on Muslims," so I understand. Which is why I consider it meaningless.

I meant a couple here on MLW, but I take your point. However, I imagine a lot more Canadians get/got excited about Obama...maybe even Palin! All pretty moot, as you have pointed out elsewhere, but that's another topic....

I know just what you mean. I'm not an autobiography reader personally, but I can't see how a book's worth--as an interesting read--could possibly be determined by how close we adhere to the politics of the author. A friend of mine read both Clinton's and W's, and preferred W's overall. She's no fan of Bush, to put it mildly, but she is a fan of books.... As for Coulter, Beck, and O'Reilly...I've never read any of them, but I'm not surprised. Bill has a more appealing personality (to me, anyway), more self-effacing and down-to-earth.

Bah.

Actually, I thought Bonam was right. He wasn't making any sort of wild claims about parenting; only that it is perfect natural--and reasonable--for children to object to restraints, punishments, and things that affect their bodily freedom.

I haven't seen it, but yeah, that seems to be what some people have said about it.

I think if you could prove exactly what killed them, without a shred of doubt, he'd keep asking anyway. It's his way.

Your lawyer can call my lawyer. Meanwhile, we'll meet for a beer and I'll just give you two bucks or something.

Yes, taste always comes into play, of course. I'm just talkin,' here. I don't know that it does. It's the simpleminded lack of honesty and reflection of what I deemed "pop conservatism" that I don't like. Much like you'd get with watching "7th Heaven" or some such abortion. Like I also said, there's a type of "pop liberalism"--easy answers, premises presented as objective facts (whether through politics or though simple film convention), simpleminded views on human nature--that commits the same errors. Now, sure, one answer to such critiques is that "it's only a movie! Relax"! To which I'd respond, "I know it's only a movie; and I am relaxed." I find these topics interesting, nothing more than that.

Nothing. When people make openly and inarguably bigoted comments, they are often called out on them, regardless of the rest of the thread's context.