Doncha just love threads like this one?

It's a bit like the fag-end of an Australia Day family party, where everyone has had just a little too much sun, and a smidgin too much grog.

Uncle Joe, who considers himself a respected thinker, starts in on his brother-in-law Jim - who was dragged away from the cricket to be there - about the fact that he voted for Kevin. A few comments go back and forth "Kev's a fake, and you're a dill", "Howard was Bush's lapdog", and it's on for young and old.

Everyone starts to tell everyone else what they really, really think of them. To listen in on their barney, you'd think that they don't belong on the same planet, let alone be kinfolk.

But hey, it's a party. Very few - maybe only one or two - will take umbrage, and sulk in a corner. But before you know it the rest are out playing cricket in the yard.

Then brother-in-law Jim hits the ball into the neighbour's swimming pool...

I should also apologise to Houellebecq, who rather than Bronwyn made the correct observation that bipolar disorder is a recognised mental illness.

And yes Pericles - it is indeed a bit of a hoot.

Aw.....meanie! Graham took Porkabelle's portrait. Tsk tsk!

Could the saintly person who wrote these words:

"Henceforth I'm going to try and avoid descending to their rhetorical antics."

... possibly be the same person who has repeatedly called me mentally unbalanced, 'moonbat', 'fruit loop', 'conspiracy nut', etc. etc.?

I can only surmise that a second person must be making use of the account "CJ Morgan".

--

Kind stranger, would you care to join me in the forum discussion "Bush's legacy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8484#134015 ?

I am sure that, unlike Christopher, you will prove yourself able to comprehend my case as to why there should be a new and proper investigation into the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

One wonders how many times I've said this discussion that there were others whose actions needed correction too but what's a lie or two if one feels threatened?

I didn’t mention any names until the 4th/5th post and after naming was demanded. And after both had gone in self defensive style defending against vague references that included others. Saying that the contrary is yet another lie.
This is of course from the person who doesn’t care about anyone else’s feelings (his words) why bother. Baiting is such a pointless/childish thing.
Since when is it wrong to strive for manners and respect for others, to ask an errant individual to observe those common values in public or come to someone’s aid who is being unnecessarily/unfairly being attacked?
Or pointing out that the flaws in both facts and logic in a discussion, defending my self or supporting others against lies and plagiarized unimaginative insults?
If this is what is meant by being high and mighty, condescending?
Then we agree I am guilty and proud of it. I don't see shame in apologising when I err quite the contrary.
If you believe either we are doomed if not from Socialism then Islam.
Both see the donut hole not the donut.
Why do I comment now? The demonstrable Truth ( for others) albeit a little obvious.

Col
This is my rough take on your nebulous question.
A socialist is some one who conforms to the dogmatic doctrine of socialism. A socialist’s focus is the maintenance of the system.
Leftist doesn’t conform to a (dogmatic) doctrine and is someone who has progressive views who is somewhere between a conservative and a socialist.
Someone who accepts a combination of both but capitalism and state as a dichotomy. Their primary focus is people.
e.g.
A socialist state controls medicine totally. Medicare only.
A Leftist allows for Medicare and HBA etc
A conservative wants only private industry only HBA.
NB. As Leftist is a vague concept in exists in degrees either way.

Belly
Thanks.
I don't know either is the answer.I guess its back to my high place.

'Since when is it wrong to strive for manners and respect for others, to ask an errant individual to observe those common values in public or come to someone’s aid who is being unnecessarily/unfairly being attacked?'

All fine examinator but not when used selectively.