bloodyminded

I"m afraid I got to give you that one. Fair enough.

Oh, but you will. Or else be sentenced to thirty discussions a day with Saipan, and only with Saipan.

So you didn't google "synagogues in Canada." Perhaps you googled "will there be another Transformers movie?" and discovered zero references to Canadian religious institutions.

I understand, and have never made the claim that all--or most--opponents of the Mosque have been bigots. Others have made the claim, yes. I haven't. "Bleeding heart" as a "faction" is worse than imprecise--it means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is used to describe liberals generally at times; and then to describe "factions" that scarcely exist (or don't exist at all, perhaps). The goalposts move continually. In your formulation, it is those who "love and approve of every single thing that every Muslim does." (Yes, not be taken absolutely literally, I understand.) So who are these people? And there are so many that they are affecting public policy...that they are partly to blame, according to Raza? And yet none can be pointed out, I take it? An invisible force of "bleeding hearts" with no face, no voice, who love everything every muslim does...and whoever they are, they are powerfully affecting things. No, Raza is being intellectually lazy here, using the term either because she's a reactionary blowhard (which does not seem to be the case)...or as a sop to them, because she finds them intimidating. (This phenomenon occasionally occurs among weak-kneed liberals, as a sop to the hostile-to-thought sectors of conservatism.) Or, she could be one of those hawkish liberals, the type who admire conservatives on everything except maybe women's rights, on which point they tend to fall squarely liberal. Manji is another of these, utterly ignorant outside a narrow realm of insight and (yes) real decency. (She really thinks the neocons are genuinely interested in "freedom" of oppressed people...I could explain at length, using some of the neocons's own histories, to discredit this preposterous, mythical idea of freedom-loving liberators. But the true believers, including Muslims, aren't interested in such facts. They hate them, really. But that's their own fault, of course.) "Bleeding heart"? Who is she talking about? I mean: exactly who? If the question cannot be answered, then she is talking about a straw man, a phantom.

Privatized health systems are intensely bureacratic, despite weird opinions to the contrary. I don't know if it has to be that way...but the fact remains that it is that way.

Yes, now I see what you mean, but again, we're talking about one person's opinion of what another person "might be" thinking. That she's a Muslim doesn't have much bearing for me on the subject at all. I'm not going to fall in the Breivik "good Jews versus bad Jews" mode of thinking, based purely on my personal ideological leanings. And I hasten to add that I don't disagree with her on every point: personally, I think Islam is long past due a liberalizing reformation. Matters of personal freedoms, women's rights, and political violence are not more debatable, in my view, than is organized racism or any number of other ills. I do enjoy her summoning "bleeding heart white liberals," in strict accordance with her reactionary conservative brethren in North America, however. How could one ever get sick of the "blame the left" mentality? It's fun and nutritious!

I guess you and I see differently on what a person might mean about "victory mosque"--which could connote "victory" over bigotry, or a "victory" in bringing people of different faiths to some sort of understanding...clearly it's open for interpretation. Not only that, but interpretation at second hand, as we're talking about one man's opinion of what "might be" the case for someone else, after the question is brought up by a third party. Compare all that to "Muslim triumph over the West," which has different, and certainly openly hostile, connotations. (In fact, denotations.) Not even the same ballpark.

Yeah, and I was responding to the people like Gellar who opined it was "intended to show Muslim triumph over the West," the direct remark to which I was responding. As someone sensitive to being misconstrued, I'd think you'd be sensitive to the same issue for others. Even those you think of as "assholes," and with whom you are "not going to discuss anything any more" [sic].

Out of curiosity, do you believe in the "eye of the needle" parable? I know some Christians--particularly those who heretically beleive that the wealthy are superior--have attempted to water it down, so that an important parable by God-in-the-flesh amounts to "you can't take it with you." I ain't buying that. so what do you think?

I guess it depends on whom you ask. According to some people, he's a true-blue religious fanatic. Others say hogwash. Personally, on this matter of his religious beliefs, I so far remain...agnostic!

Yes, I know. And the American spellings are totally legitimate. Unfortunately, jbg doesn't agree that both are acceptable (or he pretends not to agree). My only point was--by his standards (Webster's)--the "ou" spellings are legitimate.

Oh good lord, this is semantics that declares virtual opposites to be the same thing. I'm not against lobbying; I'm not against the will to try to influence policy. Obviously not. I'm against a fractional number of elites using influence to affect public policy so that they can personally make more cash. And when it comes to things like war, we have a name for it: profiteering.

Then you should cease answering questions by way of asking another. Like in your very next post: And in the one after that: And in more than half of your posts on the previous couple of pages.

Again, I don't understand why it is an alternative. It would still exist, yes...as it exists now. ??? That tremendously wealthy people do not have more say over public policy than do people without money. That matters of policy--notably (but not restricted to) war--are not influenced and lobbied for by monied interests who seek profiteering gains through violence. That "investment opportunities" are not reasonable pretexts, even in part, for war.

Oh, I believe so, yes. I was just kidding.

Didn't we already have this discussion? Fourth largest Jewish population on Earth?

I agree with some of this, but I have serious doubts about the (self-labelled, self-indulgent) assertions of superior conservative "practicality." As for your remarks that some conservatives may behave badly or in an insulting manner...because they have their backs up thanks to lefties' insults....why in the world could you not imagine the insulting lefties are coming from a similar place in this matter? As for Hawking...while he doesn't speak much on political matters, the little he has said appears to place him firmly in the liberal camp; a proponent of universal healthcare, a proponent of the climate change concerns, and some offhand remarks about exploiting third world peoples (said in the context of possible alien life). None of these alone are proof positive of political leanings (which can be often complex in any case), but taken together, they are suggestive.

OK, but I'm not advocating an end to money. Like everyone aside from hardcore communists and outright anarcho-capitalists, I believe in a mixed economy: a capitalist engine with socialist amelioratives to protect the have-nots from capitalism's harsher tendencies. And no, I imagine you're correct that a total evaporation of undue/disproportionate political influence is not possible. But it can certainly be improved from the current situation. In many ways, under democratic auspices, the rich have less influence than they used to do, back in the days of feudalism, of mixed wealth/blood aristocracies, and so forth. Even more recently, mafia's direct political/legal infleunce was greater than it is today, and I'm not sorry to see it waning. I'm only positing that we haven't reached some mythical end-stage, some apogee of democratic balance comprising the end of democratic struggle. There are always improvements to be made in this direction.

Not exactly. It is an indication of how the wealthy have a disproportionate influence and effect on government.

"Allah is God and Muhammad (peace be on his name) is his Prophet." Yeah, I have doubts that this would accepted with equanimity.

The scientists have some dark truths about mammoths that they simply don't want us to know.

No, you are refusing to concede an obvious point. I'm not talking about some objective measure of "equality" among human beings. I am talking about equality before the law, and minimizing a democratic deficit in which you can buy political power. No, that's an existing issue, not one that will replace the oligarchic system about whose defense you are so passionate. Besides, as it stands, money does get you the right "connections," obviously. If you were opposed to such a thing, you would be...opposed to such a thing. Period. "Anyone can get money" is theoretically true, but in the objective, actually-existing world, most people do not. Therefore, the minority that do so have undue and disproportionate political influence...meaning influence on policies that directly affect people's lives. You wish to position theory above actual, lived reality. Yes, but political infuence exists with the fact of money's influence. Where you are devising this either/or notion is beyond me.

As you said: "Answered by another question - in the usual ducking fashion."

And it costs money. You seem to forget that. But you weren't talking about this sort of thing. You were talking about giving lashes to people, and within the legal framework. I understand you have trouble keeping up with others. But surely you can keep up with your own arguments? If you believe there will never be any liberal-minded people in politics and in the justice system, then your views are fundamentally ridiculous.

And I was just asking what your opinion is on the matter. But Saipan, you have been repeatedly and continually "answering" questions by asking another question. More than me or anyone else has done. Why hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?