I'll say this: I do disdain people who cast aspersions on others for cheap points, especially if they fail to walk their remarks back after having the mistake pointed out.

I am also inclined to think that eventually, no matter how well intentioned someone is, if they hold to leftism the logical consequences of that ideology eventually percolate into the person's individual behaviour.

Your behaviour in this instance reinforces that view, unfortunately.

I'll say this: I do disdain people who cast aspersions on others for cheap points, especially if they fail to walk their remarks back after having the mistake pointed out.

I am also inclined to think that eventually, no matter how well intentioned someone is, if they hold to leftism the logical consequences of that ideology eventually percolate into the person's individual behaviour.

Your behaviour in this instance reinforces that view, unfortunately.

So according to you the Kent State shootings had merit. And you want to suggest this doesn't imply any sort of disdain or hatred?

Sure, now that you've been challenged on it, I expect you'll claim that you didn't mean that, but I find people's true nature often comes out when they're not thinking about it. So perhaps you might want to do some self-examination to figure out what your feelings really are.

Or at the very least, learn not to be an ass.

As to the second, leftist ideology is inherently evil in the sense that it's logical consequences are such. However many leftist points of view are not inherently evil in and of themselves.

For example: many leftists support treating captured Taliban insurgents as POWs. This, in itself, is often just an expression of magnanimity and compassion – clearly not evil. However the logical consequence of this is that all soldiers who fight disguised as civilians have to be treated as POWs, which leads to the targeting of civilians and hence the murder of innocent people.

Hence the ideology is evil, once you follow it through, but the leftist point of view held by your average Leftist is well intentioned and in many ways admirable, albeit not clearly thought out. This is why seeing that Leftism is "consistently evil" is not the same as hating every Leftist POV.

Capische?

Or that you do not hate "consistent evil"?

How deep a sophistry hole do you want to dig?

Some quotes of yours:

"Anything that gets the Left upset must have some merit. " -
"As to the Left, an ideology that is consistently evil is actually a pretty good moral compass. When it points North then you can't go too far wrong if you head South."

From: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/17/dear-prudence/…

If you want to point to a specific case of bias on the Star reporter's Mitch Potter's part against the current government, go ahead.

I find it amusing however, that most Conservative supporters on here gleefully quote Jane Taber ad nauseam when she's quoting "senior unnamed Liberals" on the LPC's troubles.. yet when a Star reporter quotes a former senior NATO official who's critical of the Harper operation on this, suddenly the Star is biased and the source is not credible.

As to your questions:
(1) I'm not a CPC supporter, although since I am a social conservative / libertarian I probably do have more in common with many CPC MPs than MPs from other parties.
(2) I do not hate the leftist POV, or disdain commenters who have one. I do have very little respect for Olbermann and Maddow, but that's largely because I find them to be arrogant, dishonest, sneering, crass liars.
(3) My objections to anonymous sources being taken at their word is unrelated to the point of view expressed by said anonymous sources.

O'Connor, MacKay Harper and crew have all made statements in and outside of the House which beggar belief: No one is abused in Afghan custody; the Red Cross would report it if it happened (not); even though there's no problem, we halted transfers and put in a more rigorous transfer agreement (apparently more than once); one of our top guys in Afghanistan (twice) and currently in DC can't be believed (despite taking one of the highest risk positions in Kandahar); anyone critical of the mission is giving comfort to the Talibs, etc.

They've obstructed, lied and defamed on this file for nearly four years. It's sad that Conservative supporters aren't the first to demand better.

What's most disturbing is how most Canadians really don't care about a conflict they've booked 8 years in … and the CPC knows it. Actually, I'm wrong. It's not sad or disturbing. It's pathetic.

/Wilson

If you look at record of the Star over years of advocacy for all things left/center and single source stories that make a one day splash you understand why many look it as a joke.

On a more important note the Riders are back in the game and that IS important.

“The lines were, ‘We have no evidence’ of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister’s Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver.”

Is that a knotted rope i spy in the far distance just waiting for someone? I wonder who could have put it there?

Yes, yes, i know. The star’s a filthy communist rag published over at olo. Yet the evidence mounts remorselessly, even if it’s only curcumstantial, as yet.

Now would be a good time to come together liberal party…oh you are…that’s all right then.

So your evidence that the Liberals knew about is from the same month the Liberals lost power.

Many NATO officials in Kabul were also aware how seriously Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin was following the issue, he said. “Richard Colvin behaved as a straight-up-and-down person, completely honest and doing his job to the best of his abilities,” the former official said. “He had to be terribly careful. He couldn’t speak to us about this. But it was clear that the tone at the Canadian Embassy had changed. It became far more politicized – and it was clear that Richard Colvin was struggling enormously to do his work on the question of detainees.”

Very interesting, isn’t it, how folks in the diplomatic core and even those who worked in NATO are coming to the defense of Richard Colvin? Perhaps the attacks of Colvin that has taken place this week by Peter Mackay and others in the Conservative government was a bridge too far for them. It appears more then a few have had enough of seeing the smear job being attempted on his work and his reputation from the Conservative government

I wont hold my breath you will, of course. All you've done on here since this story broke is try to deflect, obfuscate and use the excuse the Liberals did nothing either.

Fact is, all this latest stuff happened on your guy's watch, and it's becoming apparently clear he and the Conservative Party were doing everything in their power to make sure this didn't cause political blowback on them.

On balance, I don't think the reasonable "feel" of the quotes outweighs that the source is a useless rag of a newspaper quoting someone they won't name.

If this guy is real, and really wants to convince people, he should talk to a credible news agency on the record. Otherwise I tend to relegate this to the realm of "creatively-written National Enquirer piece".

Do you actually believe that the Martin government was unaware of the reports of abuse in Afghan jails, dating back many many years before the CPC won government?

Where are their reports on torture in the Afghan prison system?

Other than apparently actually working in the NATO spin room at the time, of course….

Anonymous source? *shriek*
Ethically-compromised newspaper the name of which is *not* The National Post: *shriek*

You mean *your* PMO.

Welcome to the world of news journalism.