Leaderboard

Oh I'm well aware of it. The problem is that the type of man women are (in general) attracted to are much likely to engage in aggressive behaviour towards anyone who annoys them. The ideal man is, of course, someone like the characters played by John Wayne, say, or the James Bond types. Deadly dangerous, tough, smart, but they'd never hit a woman (well, Bond would, but only spies who try to kill them) I used to read a detective series called Spenser For Hire. Spenser was a big, bruiser of an ex-heavyweight boxer and ex-cop whose best friend was a gangland killer for hire. He was also endlessly sensitive, caring, into gourmet foods and wines, quoted poetry and consulted his Jewish psychologist girlfriend about how to best nurture victims. It was an entertaining series, but it always struck me an absurd mixture of character traits impossible to find in one man. If you want a caring, sensitive man not afraid to cry, you're looking at the librarian. And librarians just aren't anything like as sexy as the biker with the days growth of beard on his face and the hunger in his eyes. The biker will be much more exciting, of course, but excitement doesn't always mean good things. And I bet he found another woman who thought that was sexy. Meanwhile the Librarian is at home alone reading Chaucer - or playing Fortnight. BTW, that line is not new. My brother in law uses it too. And it doesn't seem to bother my sister - not enough to try to murder him anyway, like his last wife did.

I've been there,love them. My kin over there call Huddersfield..... mucky Huddersfield .

Typical hack response. The CBC is one of the jewels of Canada. It's the closest thing to a non-partisan media outlet. But just because some of their news may upset the cheerleaders of one party, suddenly they are biased.

Our culture, despite what anyone might think of gender equality, is still largely that of women trying to attract men, of women trying to persuade men to ask them out, to approach them. And what supports that warped view? Womens preferences in men for boyfriends and husbands has been fairly consistent over the years and decades and centuries. They want big, strong, tough, confident, assertive men. They don't want men who cry and they don't want men who can be easily intimidated. Bad boys are sexy. Nerds and geeks are definitely not. Women lust after firefighters, soldiers, forest rangers and cops, not librarians, bookkeepers or software developers. So if men feel the need to project ruggedness and toughness maybe that's more than slightly related to what women want from men.

The argument is all about opinion. The ad simply states, "Don't be an Asshole". If you're take is that most men aren't assholes so don't tell me not to be, that's fine. But then the ad should mean nothing to you. The marketing didn't work for you. But since you're talking about it so much, it kind of did. If you're defending some of the characteristics exhibited in the ad, then the problem lies with you.

Stop womansplaining

WRONG! Was there ever a time when a person that's considered a concern to our national security ever granted permanent resident status? Was there ever a time during Harper's government wherein this same thing happened? Did Harper government ever make a mockery of our national security? yes, they are! One terrorist is too many. Go ahead, why don't you ask people who'd lost loved ones, or survived a terror attack!

Ads for Women: Be thin! Be thick! Love your body! Get bigger boobs! Embrace your grey hair! Dye your hair! Wear makeup! Look natural! Hide your age! These pants are slimming..... Women: OK Gillette: Men should be less shitty. Men: Don't tell us what to do!

Nice pix. Yes, I recall Bath. Stokesay has to be one of the nicest settings. Shropshire...Sort of like I imagined the Shire to be like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokesay_Castle

It hasn't failed yet. Bound to be. No one ever suggested it wouldn't. But there would be positive things too, like a return to sovereignty. Yeah, estimated by the same people who campaigned against BREXIT in the first place. The main reason voters voted to leave the EU was the continuing encroachment on national sovereignty of the growing EU bureaucracy into every aspect of life. I'm sure the British are in favour of a TRADE agreement. What they don't want is Europe deciding what their laws should be, or who can and can't move to the UK. Would you agree to a trade agreement with the US where the US had had a veto over our laws and could decide who could and could not enter Canada? People all over the world dislike immigrants, but far more in African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries than in the UK or EU. Most people can tolerate a certain number, but when the numbers get too high the resentment builds. All over the EU people are angry about immigrants/migrants, and governments which ignore that anger are falling. If the French were given a vote they'd vote to ban all new immigrants and migrants tomorrow. So would the Germans or the Dutch or the Swedes. The EU bureaucrats are trying to wreck BREXIT. No surprise there. They bargained for a deal which they knew wouldn't be approved in hopes of toppling May and getting a more congenial leader in who represents the interests of the London elites. I don't think it's going to work. The UK government backing down on BREXIT at this point would trigger massive and violent national protests and disturbances. It would further radicalize the British and lead to the growth of far right political parties. It would, in other words, be a temporary victory for the EU but a long term loss.

I've been concerned about this for a while now - the US could easily not feel we are securing our border (probably because we are not) and relations with the US/Canada could get very strained.

I love ruins! I loved the Roman Baths in Bath, England and I loved Stonehenge. The UK is great for historical ruins. Although at the end of 3 months, I was getting a bit ruined-out.

Just the usual Trudeau gov't incompetency, but remember now, we can't question them or we are ________________ put your name there.

Betsy.......you risk being called a racist - unCanadian!

I personally see nothing at all wrong with the two cooperating re: mutual interests. Sure beats the other option... But, it would seem the Liberals and Democrats need an enemy that isn't their pet Muslims or their Chinese masters. Ayyyyyooooh!

Sounds good....Putin and Trump both matter a lot more than Trudeau.

That it was the good ol' UK and the new guys is rather telling, eh?

Sure hope so....seems to have gotten their attention. Trump wins....

Easy to do when somebody else pays most of the bill.

Other than the UK's modest efforts, USA has been doin' that already.

She's been fired. Of course the Liberals are saying that she resigned but we all know that's just double speak for fired.

It's usually not said that baldly. But there is no doubt whatsoever that ethnic candidates spend much of their time in their temples/mosques/churches and at various ethnic gatherings telling their people how great it would be to have one of 'theirs' as an MP in Ottawa to influence policy. Every ethnic candidate for the Tories, Liberals and NDP do it. Hell, they often gather up 'their' people prior to an election and then rush the local riding association with a sudden flood of new members, all of whom will vote for their guy to be candidate. They often know little or nothing about him (or her) except he's one of "theirs'. It happens in every riding with a large ethnic membership across Canada.

Tribalism is the holy grail of modern retail politics. It allows the population to be sliced and diced into easily identifiable cultural constituencies that can then be profiled and bought off one at a time. We kid ourselves if we believe anything other than this is going on in all three mainstream political parties. The only constituency to which collective appeals are considered inappropriate is the majority population. As Maxime Bernier has stated, we're in an era characterized by an agenda of extreme diversity. The problem, of course, will arise if the excluded group asserts its collective beliefs and interests.

I absolutely agree. Like I said, I don't condone that Chinese candidate's comment and she should retract it. I'm just saying that that Anglos (and Francos too by the way) are not immune from it either. But I digress. Back to the OP: she should formally withdraw her comment or face the consequences. I as a voter would certainly reconsider voting for her for that comment.

It's established that appealing to Anglo or Judeo-Christian heritage of a Candidate is frowned upon. But what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Cite context? Harper certainly broadened the ethnic "Big Tent" element of the CPC. Any attack that it's a party of angry white men is just an old Liberal mantra.

Indeed. And you'll be a minority in your own country...just like the Natives...vote all you like to rid yourself of Islam. It's here to stay...and it doesn't want to share power. Wants you dead or converted... ...and since Trudeau Sr's mission...continued by Jr...was to break the back of British culture (read anybody not Quebecois)...the eventual destruction of English Canada at the hands of a 7th century death cult will be the final irony for 1759.

An Islamic party can't be divorced from Islam and the current, mainstream teachings of Islam. If you don't profess Islam that means you're an unbeliever. It is not coincidental that of the 57 Muslim majority states not one gives equal treatment to non-Muslims. An Islamic party will ultimately never represent your best interests unless you're a conservative Muslim.

I prefer first-past-the-post, thank you very much.

I don't exactly fear China either. The problem is globalization.

I wont, instead I will de-Confederate Canada and allow each province to have its own gun laws.

Trump has already fulfilled his most important role anyways, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, bam, mission accomplished. Those two alone have already crippled the liberal agenda for generations to come. Now its just a question of whether or not he can score the hat trick, RBG takes a spill, and then it's lights out, Democrats, fucked for life, total SCOTUS War victory.

Liars on the left try to paint the trade war with China as belonging to Trump. China's trade war on the USA started 18 years ago. Under Obama and the presidents before him, the USA bent over and grabbed it's ankles. No one before Trump has tried to hold China accountable. And for that he gets blamed.