JerrySeinfeld

Yes. as per classical liberalism, the key determining factor is direct harm.

"Identity politics is the concept used to perpetuate racial stereotyping which first began prior to the civil rights movement and was largely a racial tactic used by the conservative southern males. Since that time, identity politics has been adopted by left wing liberal poltical movements as way to perpetuate racial stereotyping for political advantage. Nobody should be an individual. Individuals become independant, think for themselves and ultimately vote republican. Members of an identifiable group, however, are victims and need help from the left wing party du jour to over come their opressed state in society. This opressed state can, of course, never be percieved to have been overcome, because if it did, it would mean the end of the left wing liberal party." - unknown definition

Has Barack Hussein backed himself into a corner? His big teleprompter deal during tha campaign was that war isn't the answer, that all he have to do is reach out and talk to thug nations and everythig will be A-OK and that Bush is a warmonging maniac. Nice juxtaposition. Good election tactic. People in the US were war weary and he latched onto it and rode it into the Whitehouse. But now the thugs or the world are playing the same game they did with Carter. In the late '70's the Iranians took american citizens hostage (there are two america "hostages" in North Korea right now). Carter did jack squat. They were not released. Then Reagan was elected, and soon the boys were home. Why? CREDIBILITY. As an American President, you don't always have to use force, but your adversaries have to think you will. With Obama, this is a huge, problem, because the whole world knows he campaign on the image of NOT using force. Of talking. Well the thugs know this - that all he will do is talk, not DO anything. They detonate a NUCLEAR BOMB. Obama: this is unacceptable. They test long range rockets (for delivering the nuke). OBAMA: This is reeally unacceptable. They refuse to accept Obama's extended hand. OBAMA: This is really really unacceptable. The thugs of the world know that as long as Obama talks talks talks, they can do do do. That's the difference between a guy like Bush or Reagan, and a guy like Obama or Carter. The Obama doctrine was entirely based upon the premise that "if we're only nicer, then things will be ok". But what if these guys don't play ball? WHat if they're even bigger assholes, more evil, hate us more than even Bush knew they do? Is there a plan B? Obama has no plan B, unless of course his plan B is Bush's plan A - but how stupid will all those crying victorious Berkely Obamatrons look then? As things develope overseas, the more people will realize that Obama's intentional impotence is causing a bigger and more dangerous mess than what they THOUGHT was a mess under Bush, and that maybe we just live in a very dangerous world and not only was it not Bush's fault, but that his tenure actually made things better, and that now they're falling apart under Obamaman. The more peaceful elections are held in Iraq, the more neighbouring Iranians demand the same, the more these thugs act up and get on with their plans, the more we're all going to keep seeing it: Bush Was Right.

Left wing isn't anarchist. Anarchist is it's own category. It believes in no government at all.

Yes there is. BONAM good post.

Maybe I am, but so what? Since when it is a right in this country not to have your feelings hurt? What is this, elementary school? "Mr. Layton, Mike called me a weiner lovin' goober head...waaaaaaaa!" Let's say a buddy of mine confesses over beers that he likes sucking on women's toes (ok bring on the taunting comments). I'll probably laugh and say "you're wierd, man". So what.

You're onto something here. But the answer...the truth...is a strange one. Because I think most women subconciously aspire to the homemaker's life. It's hard wired into their brains (settle down left wing nut progressives, there are always exceptions). It's funny because whenever I'm engaged in a conversation about this topic with a group of women, they all insist they want a career, to work, to earn their own way, to be independant. And I usually say I agree it's great to have that option, but I'm kind of traditional and I'd like to be able to work hard to make enough money so that my wife can stay home and take care of our childeren...together we would be an awesome team so that our home and family would be a real home...no nanny, no daycare. And almost...ALMOST always, the vast majority of women react in a positive way..ie "ya...i like that" or "awww...that's awesome" But I don't think many would want to know that's their only lot in life - ie. knowing there is the option to pursue other avenues and lead a more balanced life is what women enjoy, rather than just purely wokin' for the man to bring home the bacon. This is actually precisely why men generally earn more than women do in the same professions. Men work longer hours and pursue the brass ring, whereas many women choose a more balanced life including relationships, family, childeren and excercise over the almight dollar. So no, women wouldn't go back to the '50s. But many (most) like the idea of that idealized world of home, family and a steady paycheque (the husband). It's so funny. I know so many women who pursue law school, med school or whatever. To the outside world, they are career driven women with a great future. Then they get pregnant, and the change is hilarious. All of a sudden they are happy. Happy happy happy. Glowing happy. Baby comes...happier. Exhausted, but can't stop talking about it with the other moms. Then wants another. And maybe another. Goodbye career...hello family. It's hard wired. And yes, there are exceptions.

The thing is, for republicans, the issues are never really that complicated. Get the government out of the way. Have a strong and effective military for protection of American soil, American interests and those of other peaceful democracies. Protect people's basic right to life & liberty without direct harm from others.

In your little left wing world you think I'm trying to tell people what to do? No. that's the CHRC and Obama's job. What I'm saying is I should have the right to my opinions and to express them. People get offended too easily. Since when did this left wing dogma come along that everyone has to accept everything and pretend it's normal. Here is the crux of my "de-sensitivity training" argument: If 10% of people are left handed, and 3% are gay, why is it that if I say to some guy who is left handed "you are not normal - you're a south paw" he'll chuckle, but if I say that to a gay person, they have a fit and call the CHRC. The point is: everyone should take some de-sensitivity training, stop being so "offended" and calm the f*ck down.

Completely true. Just look at this thread.

There was a time just a couple of hundred years ago (mostly in the US mind you), when government was viewed as a necessary evil. Governing bodies were part time administrative jobs designed to oversea a very small handful of things - policing, roadways, national defense. Since then, it has ballooned, uncontrollably and without regard to who is in power, into a massive, nanny state all encompassing all promising Obamatron (or Trudeauatron if you're in Canada), with mega programs, mega bureaucracyies, mega unions, mega tax collection mega cencorship, mega accomodation and mega intrusion on our lives. WHere is it headed? Is it stoppable? What about when (as in the USA RIGHT NOW) you make the transition to greater than 50% of your citizens relying on the government for something. The US is about to cross that line. AFter that - is it stoppable? In places like Scotland - 75% of the GDP comes from government spending. My God, that's gotta be close to USSR and probably bigger than Red China. Canada's is smalled, but growing, and the US just grew massively in that direction. Am I the only one who thinks government - regardles of party - government should shrink back to a part time administrative jobs designed to oversea a very small handful of things - policing, roadways, national defense? Just wondering.

That's awesome. Good for her. Having individual women stand up as intelligent individuals with intelligent things to say does so much more for the "respect" of women than do a bunch of man-hating dykes marching through Berkley. As for de-sensitivity training, I think this guy put it best (since it happened to show up on google today)" "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson Great stuff. If he were here today, he'd probably say "stop being such a whiney over sensitive cry baby" to the lefty-self-created victim class.

Great then we agree. Lower taxes and less government.

That's bullshit. All I want from my government is to be left alone.

That wouldn't be the first time the Dems underestimated a hokey "underqualified" GOP star....Reagan....Bush 2....

Not relevant to the discussion - but business since you asked. Will not get more specific. I disagree. Realizing that the idealism of the left is unrealistic, sanctimonious and egotistical is the first step. Not to mention self righteous. Think about it. It's a perfect refuge for people who either didn't have the ability or drive to achieve anything substantial in their own life. They can hide in academia or in the back of some coffee shop, or marching down the street in Montreal in -20C weather with a "it's too hot in here" sign and, solely throuhg the selection of an ideology, be a betteer person than an "evil" business person who does nothing but work hard, support a family, contribute meaningfully to the community and employ dozens, or even hundreds, of people.

I used to be a hard core left wing socialist. All through high school and university. Alot of it was probably because of how sympathetically the left perspective is taught in schools. I see so many college students today who are exactly the same as I was. The typical lefty is idealistic in his need to feel good about believing in helping people, and equaling the playing field, not realizing that there are things in this world such as accountability, consequence, risk and reward, or that not all problems are solved by throwing more government (ie taxpayer) money at them. But August 1991 is right: the left is childlike in it's realizations about reality and how the world works. Since many leftwingers expect aot more from government, many are basically grown up childeren who haven't figured out how to accept taking care of their own adult resposibilities (eg. health care, savings, pension) in my opinion. The old saying "if you aren't a left winger when you're young you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when you grow up, you have no brain" is so true. My converstion began in university as I started to look around at the left wing mentality and started to think outside of what the media and the socialist schooling were feeding me. I began rejecting some of the fodder being fed by professors, to question the "accepted wisdom" that all right wingers are evil-doers with no heart. I also started to realize that iff I wwanteed something in life, I had a choice of two roads: join the private sector, work extremely hard and achieve what I wanted to without asking for or expecting any help from anyone. OR, join the whiney masses and start demading that someone else do more for me. I chose the former, in other worlds, I grew up. Then as I entered the working world I started to read more beelieefs from the other side, and listen to talk radio - one of the best mediums for right wing thinking. Why is it so good? because I believe ideas that are well though out often don't do well in soundbites. Obama can give horrendously good speeched about saving the planet and pushing back the waters (literally - he did that, remember? "let it be remembered that this was the moment when the oceans stopped rising" hahahaha)....but day to day on the ground issues and discussions about the ridiculousness of the Canadian Human Rights Commission censoring speech, or the fact that extreme multi-culti tolerance has led to reverse racism and the abuse of jewish school teachers in some Toronto schools dominated by Islamic students, is better discussed and understood on a radio format rather than an "I'm here to save the world" speech.

Interesting observation. The question is, do people want someone who, on the one extreme appears to know everything but believes nothing (Obama), or someone who has strong beliefs but less knowledge (the PERCEPTION of Palin). With the exception of Obama, academics have rarely performed well in politics. (perhaps because most of academia is populateed with people who study all day long but never really learn any lessons - but I digress) If Palin can become more "seasoned" by being immersed in mainstream politics, she'll have the killer combo of both of the above. The interesting thing about being a right winger is that often your true conviction about what to do about issues is "nothing", because you believe you should be a nation that has a government, not the other way around and that people are best left to their own devices rather than being treated as grown up childeren by one all encompassing nanny state (but I digress again). It's the Obamas of the world who will often have a long winded answer about the "complexities" of an issue, without ever really letting on what your core beliefs are, and then creating a massive taxpayer government program to "solve the problem". Or as one european commentator put it during Obama's highly unsuccessful euro-apology tour: "he does tend to go on a bit" Anyway, Palin beat up on Lauer in the interview, you have to admit. So for a guy who is about as left wing as they come and sure to make an attempt to embarass in her place, he sure came ill-prepared. Way to go Sarah!

OK we've all heard a bit about the Letterman/Palin feud after Letterman made an off colour comment about Palin's daughter. I want to clarify a couple of things about this topic. 1. I DO NOT CARE WHAT LETTERMAN ACTUALLY SAID. THAT IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THIS TOPIC. Rather, in watching the interview below (follow the link), I was extremely impressed with Palin as I haven't heard her speak in awhile. Since the presidential campaign, she has become a much more eloquent speaker, very well informed and unphased by (blatantly obviously) media that is biased against her and hell bent on trashing her image. 2. I AM NOT PUTTING HER BELIEFS UP FOR DEBATE HERE. THIS TOPIC IS DESIGNED TO EXAMINE HER PUBLIC SPEAKING / INTERVIEW ABILITIES. Link to Matt Lauer / Palin interview. So all you Palin haters take a deep breath. Watch the vid. Now comment. Again, the question: Is Sarah Palin getting better? To me she comes off as more credible, more informed, more articulate, yet still has that likeable folksy quality about her. Personally, as a conservative I am excited and energized by her as a politician. If she continues this trajectory of improvement, she is a serious contender for taking over in 3.5 years and cleaning up this mess Obama is creating. At the end of the interview, she makes a decent comment about what many republicans are really all about: keeping government out of the economy. If she can continue to refine and improve on this message, she could be the next Reagan: ie. the likeable, charismatic, folksy leader with a big heart and a laser-like focus on what she believes.

no. the law courts deal with these things. the CHRC is a quasi kangaroo court set up by the government and so by it's very nature is a political, not a judicial, body. it uses it's "authority" to police people's right to freedom of expression, speech or peaceful exchange of ideas. under it's watch, facts are not a legitamate defense. the burden of proof is that someone is "offended". human rights commissions have successfully drain the Western Standard of it's resources onyl because the magazine chose to print the danish cartoons of muhammed - cartoons the entire world was talking about. is this what this country has come to? everyone complains about the evil christians, but it is the muslims who have succesfully and effectively created a "blashphemy" law in Canada by financially penalizing anyone who chooses to print or say something they don't like. Since when does anyone in the country have a right no to have "their feelings hurt" - the right not to be offended? The whole idea of "being offended" is a cloaked and clever way to shut someone up or tell them how they allowed to speak - which is precisly what's going on in places like suadi arabia - and precisely why people should take "de-sensitivy training". And it's fascism.

WHat are you talking about? Hate speeech is adequately covered by hate speech laws. Employment discrimination is as well covered by anti discrimination laws and the constitution. So why can't we all join together in abolishing Canada's thought and speech police, the CHRC, clearly an extension of left wing progressivist fascist tyranny?

"fight intolerance" sounds like thought police to me. the approprriate laws and protections exist in law and in the constitution. The rest is just a dressed up fascist plot to control speech and thought.

Thank you. Since we agree let's move to abolish the CHRC and it's ugly sisters in the provinces.

Oh really? So then you would agree that Muslims who hate gays and trample women's rights should not be tolerated? Bait taken i love it.

So what. I once saw a chimpanzee poo into his hand then eat it.