JerrySeinfeld

Socialism rewards the lazy and punishes the achiever.

Say what you want, Kimmy, but I don't think anyone can argue that this economic slowdown, combined with a disillusionment by the electorate about Bush's last couple of years has created the conditions just right for a radical and dramatically swift move by Obama and other hard core lefties like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid to vastly growing the size of government. The ad is telling in one respect: the positive effects of stimulous are still uncertain if existent at all. But we do know that government has gotten dramatically bigger. THAT, I believe, was the real goal. Obama is quite far left wing. Very socialist. Everye time he strays from the teleprompter, that is what he has said in plain english. The economic desperation, the backlash against Bush and the 60 senate seats is simply creationg the right opportunity for these guys to implement such an aggresive transformative hard left agenda. Ads like this may stretch things and cherry pick, but if the ultimate strategy is to help people take off the Obama-Rose glasses and see him for what he is: a junior senator with no resume who kept some questionable, if not downright radical company and a pretty agressive socialist agenda, then maybe the ads will have their desired effect. This guy has charming qualities, but make no mistake. His intentions are scary ones. He has piled layer upon layer upon record-breaking layer of massive government debt in the name of social programs. Americans may not have wanted their own trudeau, but they've got him. And they'll be paying for it for generations.

Israeel is a proxy for how any one of us would behave if we actually LIVED in a neighbour surrounded by people who want you dead. It's easy to preach restraint when sitting in the editorial office of the NYT or the poli-sci department of some university. If you want to know how the world will be once Islam spreads in larger numbers to Europe, US, Canada, just watch what they do to Israel day in day out.

I thinkk it's dangerous to put forth an example like the tobacco companies as an example of global warming "deniers" today. First of all, it's a stielted straw man argument, taking a proven failed propaganda effort by a narrow industry group (tobacco) and applying the same circumstance to a large group of people who are negatively affected by ever more impending government control over how we live our lives in the name of "saving the planet". Just look at the posts above. One guy even suggested that it is now the "deniers' who must provide evidence that carbon isn't warming up the earth. Wow. Times have changed. Scientific theories used to have to provide evidence, yet in today's eco-cult, you just have to believe and the non-belivers are asked to provide evidence against your religion. Just as the Iraq war is not Vietnam and the backlash against venomously anti-western muslims is not the civil rights movement, not every eco-lefty cause can be summed up by what some university kid learned while watching forest gump. Unless of course you'd like to talk about how a scientist like Galileo was in the vast minority in his viewpoint and was called a "denier" by society, placed under house arrest for the rest of his life for not buying into the "consensus". But that's for another day. Argue the facts and stop trying to "educate" people with false analogies. Life isn't a 60's scrapbook.

It seems like most everyone on here is in agreement - both left and right - that gay pride parades shouldn't be getting handouts. So how do they get away with it? It goes back to my own pet topic on this board: the tyranny of "nice" (as the book is called). We've been conditioned to never speak our opinions in public, lest someone gets offended and we're accused of "hate". My $0.02

Yea they hate those things down there. Fly south and poop all over the place. Breed like rabbits. We are supposed to revere them but Americans look at them like rats. I don't blame them. I was at a lake last weekend and they shat everywhere. I remember a few years ago it was like one family. Then all of a sudden this year they are wlakingg around aggresively hissing at people and shitting all over the place. Time for an old fashioned bird killin'.

This is complete bunk. If you look at left wing rhetoric, it's completely designed around the idea that people are getting screwed by "the man" and that the world is melting. Unions, which by the way enjoy some of the best working conditions and compensation for what they do on earth, supportive of left wing politics constantly complain about how shitty their jobs, working conditions, foliday schedules, compensation, pensions and health care packages are. Environmentalists (left wing) constantly whine about the earth overheating, the destruciton of the planet and the awful state of our forests, waters, etc. The other thing lefties always claim is that people can only prosper by screwing others and keeping "the people" down. That's left wing "optimism"? Whereas right wing people acknowledge the greatness of the world, the promise, the OPTIMISM. That North America is more forested than it was 20 years ago. That our waters are cleaner than they were 20 years ago. That the left's positnio that the economy is a limited sized "pie" that must be cut up more equally is a fallacy - that IN FACT economics is more complex than that - that everyone can bake their own pie, that the "pie" can get bigger, and that everyone's piece can too. One of the biggest (and most pessimistic) errors on the left is this: "I AM RICH BECAUSE HE IS POOR" Think about it. That's how the left views economics, and it's entirely incorrect, not to mention pessimistic. Left to our own devices, we can all get richer, happier, healthier, cleaner, and more free. That is right wing thinking.

This is ridiculous. It reminds me of a thread I started elsewhere. GOP guys who cheat on their wives are moral hypocrites, but Clinton's OK because he never professed to be a moral genius...besides, he had "implied good intent" Bullshit. Men will be men. Don't try and categorize indiscretions. If we're getting on some GOP guy for being a "moral high ground" dude for cheating on his wife, why isn't anyone getting on Al Gore for burning 10,000 kilowatt hours in his estate in Tenessee? Or what about Obama for attending a racist church for 20 years? Implied intent. The common wisdom says: Obama didn't mean it. Clinton was a good guy. 10,000 KW hours? What the hell is Al Gore doing in there? ANd the GOP is supposed to be the "party of morality". What morality? Environmental? GIVE ME A BREAK

Bush was close to perfection. Basically no interest in invading the people of America's lives wanting to be benign...until they were attacked. And he knew EXACTLY what to do. And took action. Obama is the polar opposite. MAJOR interest in invading people's lives. Higher taxes, more government bureaucracy. But when an international situation presents itself (of major consequence, by the way) he has NO idea what to do. Never confuse a Harvard education with a right/wrong compass. One thing wrong with academics: there is no right answer, becasue everything is a study. The world is looking to Obama, and Obama is looking to inspire without conviction. Strange.

I'm still waiting to hear which countries the USA has invaded and taken over.

Hey man, you're kind of making my point - ie. the talented aren't always the remembered. Ask persons on the street who Tom Waits is and 7/10 won't know. But they all know who Britney Spears is. If your standard for greatness is mass appeal, throw Jackson in with Mozart and "Lethal Weapon 2". Listen, my post was related to putting Mozart up on a pedastal above Jackson. To me their musical abilities rival eachother - as do their lives. Child musical prodigy turned whacko. Anyway, taste is taste. But I'm entiotled top my opinoin and you can't change is because someone happened to be around longer. BTW Ray Vaughn is also a better guitar player than Hendricks. Deal with that ;-)

Which countries again has the US invaded and taken control of for their own?

Yes, but the Board game Risk provides a model for what the world looks like when nations cannot rely on one solid policeman for protection. It's a good metaphor for the coming world, because certainly any nation in the SHORT RUN can last without armies. But ultimately things change and it gets ugly. Wealthy nations without armies are the hallmark of the American moment. Did anyonee here know Kim Jong Il has toyed with the idea of firing a nuke at Vancouver? Why? Because he can show the american's he's serious without proking a direct retaliation. Nice world, Obama. And the Irony is, most of the free world wholeheartedly supported Obama on his premise of America withdrawing from the role of world policeman. Hopeychangemas!

In the long trrail of history, America has only lived as the free world's policeman and protector for about 50 years. That's a pretty short moment, yet many (most?) walk the streets, make poltical commentary (usually anti USA), spend government dollars, create new social programs as if 1. They will never have to protect themselves against agressors because America will spend that money for them and protect them and 2. The "American Moment" will last forever. 50 years. That's it. In the long history of largely dicatorial, monarchical, authoritarian rule, 50 years is what the Americans have been able to give us. And most are unthankful. The eurotypes create social programs and criticize the very protection under which they live which makes those social programs possible as if they can't wait to see the USA wither away and die forever. But what of what the world will look like if that actually happens? Are we certain that in it's absence - in the era of Obama's new "intentionaly impotence" that something better comes along? Euro US hatred and pacifism is based on the very uncertain premise that everyone in the world wants to live in harmony. But what's really creeping up? China isn't exactly friendly. Russia? Yikes. Not to mention the various mini thug states bent on nuclear power. In the past 50 years, it's become not only acceptable, but fashionable to hate the USA and the umbrella of protection it provides. But isn't that kind of like cops? Everyone can't stand 'em, until you need 'em. The American Moment. 50 years. Is this the beginning of the end? And are we better off? Ever played RISK? Yikes.

This is excellent. I love this because it's a perfect example. Often there are good explanations for making generalist comments and they are more often than not rooted in fact. Take "Jimmy the Greek" who got fired as an NFL commentator and oddsmaker for stating the obvious: Black athletes in north america are genetically predispositioned to good athletic body types because their ancestors were selected on that basis over in africa during the slave trade. The most fit were selected, and the most fit of those survived the trip over in the boats. It's TRUE. But he got fired anyway. Ideally, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where we could ALL talk like Russel Peters without being afraid of being tarred and feathered for racism, when all we're doing is participating in a little joksterism based upon stereotyping that we all do from time to time, in this big multiculti countrry we live in? I know every other race does it. Why can't white people? Are white people the only ones left who can "take it" - who are robust enough as citizens to not play the victim card?

Well, as per Ronald Reagan, leader of the free world and acted like it, he inspired those inside the "evil empire" to rebel. The thugs in Iran have already come out and condemned Obama for "meddling". They're liars anyway. As the beacon of the free world, to not publically, agressivley come down on the side of freedom for fear of being misrepresented by thug regimes is an absurd stance to take. It truly show's Obama's lack of experience, which we all feared about this thin resume 1/2 term junior senator from Illinios, let us not forget. I'd rather have McCain in power right now.

I was reading this excellent article and it occured to me (although not directly related to the topic in the article) that the left has somehow, through it's control over language and the media, managed to win in the battle of implied intent. In a strange twist over the past decade, the left has become better than the right at sneakiness. Through support of programs like "The John Stewart Show", "The View", support of celebrities and just general media coverage, the left really is winning the battle of language - and the terms of debate. Let's talk about my new term: Implied Intent Because left wingers generally make decisions based upon what "feels good" at the time (rather than what makes sense), many left wingers "imply" or "impute" good intentions upon those who make crappy decisions or even downright racist statements. An exmaple would be a borderline racist or at least generalist statement by John Stewart about black people or Mexicans. I won't ask left wingers to comment on the above point because they're completely blind to it. But to my fellow right wingers - how many countless times have we seen John Stewart - in mockery of the conservatives - make an absolutely disgusting comment about a minority, but not only be forgiven but to the sound of laughter and applause because, after all, he's a liberal and there is no possible way he is a racist - after all he was simply imitating what a right wing person thinks about black people. And all the while, we as the audience are expected to impute all of this into a racist remark - and it's completely accepted as truth. This is implied intent. The audience is expected (and almost always does) to accept that his intent was good, so his remarks are forgiven. If you are left wing and think you're immune to the indoctrination, try this test. Pretend the same remark was made by Bill O'Reilly. Is your reaction, your forgiveness, the same? Examples: Barack Obama on the tonight show making a mocking remark about the special olympics. Imagine Bill Oreilly saying this. Oh the horrror. Al Gore (or Barbara Steisand) flying all over the globe in a private jet, while burning 10,000 kilowatt hours per month, while scolding the masses on carbon footprint. Now compare him to the president of Exxon Mobile flying around in a private jet. Same action, different "implied intent". One's a good guy, ones s devil. Russell Peters making durogatory jokes about chinese people. Now stick with me here, because this is where it gets a bit foggy. In "LiberalLand" (a real place where liberals go to formulate their twisted version of reality), it's not OK to make distictions about people based upon their skin colour. But if it's a Brown Skinned dude making a race based remark, it's allowed, because brown peoplee are not whiet, which means they can't be racist, even though we never make distinctions about people based upon their skin colour...expecially brown people. Again, implied intent. Why is a Christian Evangelical who votes against gay marriage a bigoted hateful asshole (implied intent), but a brown Islamic man from Pakistan living in Richmond BC who votes against gay marriage "culturally equal, but different". Implied intent. Fellow right wingers, not even mentioning the various human rights commissions in Canada, the left has in the past decade hijacked our language. For good orr bad, we are, in the face of a vast swath of media, evil. I think their is one chancee of change: it's the ongoing failures of the mainstream media. The big networks aren't what they once were in terms of power. The New York Times is pretty much kaput. Our power in talk radio is well known, but the Obama machine - through it's "fairness doctrine" is aiming to kybosh that too. We do have some great online presence. If we are to take back language, and the defining terms of debate, we must start by opposing, at every opportunity, the left's attempt to demonize, to crush, to shut us up through the use of the HRCs of Canada and elsewhere. For now, it is still not wrong to have an opinion in this country. We know we are good, honest people. Let's fight back against this "implied intent".

The sad part is, this is absolutely no surprise. The Berkely types are getting exactly what they voted for: Trudeau.

Me too. Even liberals should have to listen once in awhile.

Un freaking real. I wasn't aware of this. This is yet another example of the reinforcement of the view of entitlement lazy socialists have on our world. I know a lot of middle class dual income people who don't own a home in Vancouver right now. They really want to. So what do they do? They make sacrifices. Work harder. Save more. Invest wisely. To someday achieve that dream. This kind of thing is an insult to those people. Socialism really burns me up. It's truly frustrating. Class warfaree isn't about equality. It's about devaluing work. It's about getting something for nothing. It's about getting elected to give some couch potato more of someone else's money so you can ffeel better about yourself.

Obama is supposedly "well informed" yet he compleetely backed himself into a corneer on Iran and up until about 48 hours ago had no idea what to say....or put more correctly "what the correct thing to say" was. On Iran, the "world's best speech giver" was speechless and completely taken by surprise by the events. This whole "uprising" thing was getting in the way of him cutting a deal with the thugs in power, so he had to re-evaluate which is why he said nothing for days while the rest of the world condemned the regime's actions. By contrast, Palin may not be able to tell you where Tehran is on a map, but she knows damn well who to side with in a dispute between a murderous theocracy and an uprising of unarmed citizenry protesting in favour of democracy. I think alot of people are realizing this about Obama. He always goes for the "correct" answer. But it's not always the RIGHT answer. Most people fundamentally know the difference between political stickhandler and someone who stands up against what is wrong. This is why Palin will always fair better than what the leftist elites at the New York Times and NBC are hoping and why Bush was a two termer against every pundit's expectations.

I disagree. Billie Jean is a classic. To name just one. Oh really? The same basic premise of composing holds for both a pop song and a symphony. Both have a "hook". Both have buildup and resolution (with the exception of Wagner and some of his ilk). Each has leaqd melody components, usually represented by the violins, woodwinds or brass in orcheestral performances and usually by lead guitars, piano or lead vocals in pop music. Each has a bass and rhythm section or "backbone" representeed by low horns such as trombones or tuba, bowed double bass or timpani in orchestra, and usually represented by a drumset, bass guitar and various percussion instruments in pop music. (incidentally, playing the drum or bass part for "The Way You Make Me Feel" is infinietly more difficult than playing the double bass or tympani parts for symphony). Each creates ambeince or "bed" midrange components living at 400hz to 2.4 khx on the EQ usually represented by viola, mid range horns such as french horn, as well as cellos and usually representeed by back up vocals, piano, synth or rhythm guitar tracks. It's really the same principals arranged and performed by different instruments. I have studied and performed all types of music for years and onee thing that annoys me is classical music snobs who seem to think that their type of music requires some greater understanding or skill than does pop. It's simply not necessarily true. Many times the reverse is actually the case, depending upon composer or performance. Now throw JS Bach into the argument and I might begin to agree with you. As far as complexity, Mozart was the rolling stones. Bach was Rush, but more pleasing to the ear.

Oh COME ON. Mozart is the bubble gum of classical music. It's about as complex, or arguably less so than Michael Jackson's music (not that Micahel's is overly complex). listeen to Mozarts symphony 41, one of his better works. It's simple, repetitive yet catchy. Mozart was the rolling stones of classical music: simplee, catchy, appeal to the masses yet nothing earth shatteringly complex or layered in it's presentation. If you're gonna criticize Jackson music in isolation, fine. But to hold up MOZART as an example off comparitively more brilliant is a crock. I'd say the two had alot in common, actually. Both personally and professionaly.

Um, if you look at your quote, you weren't talking about me either - at least not about anything I actually said or believe. "Your probably think" of "I'm sure you believe" isn't a valid argument. It's making shit up. Stick to the facts and the debate at hand instead of making things up that you think people might believe, and then you won't sound like a little girl. If you were a real man with a real brain you wouldn't have to make up false statements or presumptions to make a point against a made up argument. Instead you'd stick to facts and logic. You still haven't answered the question. You raised a point about "freedoms clashing all the time". I have asked you three times now: I am defending the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Exactly what "freedom" are you defending? You must check your facts (again). The criminal code of Canada has a section dealing with the promotion/incitement of hatred. The standard of proof is very high. But it is there and for the criminal courts of Canada to deal with, not a trumped up human rights kanmgaroo speech police court.

I said no such thing. That is another strawman. Just in case you weren't aware, making things up; "posing" them as your opponent's view then knocking those made up arguments down is called strawman argument and it is fallacious. I believe as a matter of principal that the fundamental human right to freedom of expression should not be trampled upon by overbearing government regardless of the type of expression. You added the rest. Debate the point. Which "freedom" are you advocating which clashes with the human right to freedom pf expression?