JerrySeinfeld

I think if you're wierd enough to wanna have a different kind of love, go ahead. But it's not normal. That's why they call themselves "queer". It ain't normal. Live with it.

Yea. So let's legalize it and make sure we sentence any woman who reports a rape to prison time. Then we could be just like Saudi Arabia! This is a pretty funny take by you. It's similar to the left's take on nukes: 1985: "We're appalled by nucleear weapons/rape. It needs to be eradicated" 2009 eurocool: "Nuclear weeapons?/legalized rape? heck, everyone's doin it, so what's the big deal?"

I put up a post on here saying gay isn't normal, and a few cry babies actaully had the nerve to accuse me of "hatred". Isn't that a little steep? You know, despite what they're trying to shove down our throats these days, we don't have to like everything, every lifestyle. We don't really even have to "tolerate" it. Freedom goes both ways: just as you have the freedom to make your women wear a mask on their faces or to date people of the same sex, I have the freedom to think it odd, wierd, offensive or even downright mysoginistic. And I also have the freedom to express it. These days, if you're caught saying something mildly durogatory you gotta get some "sensitivity training", which in my opinion is orwellian indoctrination designed to drill into your brain "this is how we think...this is how we talk...this is how we act".... My suggestion is that we look at it from the other way: everyone should take some "de-sensitivity" training. ie. some lessons in how to develop a thicker skin. You know, when some guy of another race makes fun of white people, I don't give a shit. I hear it all the time from brown people, and I really don't care. The only thought that goes through my mind is: "strange - if I said something like that I'd be deemed a bigot". That's the beauty of "Family Guy" - it's an excersice in "de-sensitivity training". Everyone, every race, sexual orientation, gender etc. is targeted. And that's reality. If you've ever been in a taxi, you know you can talk tto the east indian guy behind the wheel about the terrible driving habits of the chinese. And you both have a good laugh about it. why? because it's funny and it's true. Then you pay the guy and both get on with life. No one files a grievance. No one gets called a bigot. No one is forced to take "sensitiovity" training. You know the other day some lesbian in vancouver tried hauling a comedian out in front of the human rights commission (and also started a fight with him) because he made some off colour jokes about her sexual orientation. Geez. Isn't the essence of humor the ability to have a laugh - at everything? And you wanna take that away? Wow. I think it's ttime we all had some "de-sensitivity" training.

Normal is the norm. Gay is not the norm. It is abnormal. WHat's so wrong with pointing out the obvious. It has nothing to do with hatred. If i see a guy picking his nose and eating it, do I not have the right to say "that's not normal in fact I think it's f*cking disgusting"? Apparently not, because in this politically backward country you're a heretic if you don't get along with the program and go down to the local pick-your-nose-and-eat-it pride parade and blow bubbles at the guy wearing a rainbow gstring. You know what I like to do when I see two gays walking down the street holding hands? I stare to make them uncomfortable. Why? Because it's a free country, and I can. As the two of them would say about holding hands: deal with it

I wonder if they're burning books and controlling people's language at this "literary" festival.

Yea you're right. I say we "get with the times" and strike gang rape from the books. And heck, while we\re at it let's sentence the woman to 60 lashes and 6 months in prison for "consorting with the wrong man". Would that be "tolerant" enough for ya?

Seriously, I'm sick of Canadian politics. What is there to talk about? There is no groundbreaking ideeological debate ongoing, because every discussion is from the left perspective. How are we going to bail out the unions/auto industry (as opposed to should we at all?) How are we going to save medicare (as opposed to is it a good system at all)? How are we going to cut greenhouse gases (as opposed to is it even necessary at all)? It's just one big left wing love in. The conservatives and their roots the Reform Alliance, originally were elected to shake up ottawa, but all that big buraecratic behemoth of an institution has done is break their will and turn them all into Toronto |Star sock puppets. BOOOOOORING.

OK. If you're straight man, like me, try to imagine this: You come home form work and there is Jimmy. He rushes over and gives you a big kiss. Then you both cook dinner and curl up in "spooning" position while watching a late night movie in bed. YUCK! I dont care what anyone says, being gay is not normal. Someonee I know just "came out of the closet" and it's the most annoying thing in the world. Get off it. And the "rainbow" flag. WHat is up with that? Sexuality is a personal matter, not to be advertised on a bumper sticker. You see a gay guy driving down the street with one of those rainbow bumper stickers on his car. I mean, basically you've got a big sign on your car that says "I love the big cock". eally, is that entirely necessary. You don't see me driving around with a "I love to f*ck women" bumper sticker. So not only is gay's sexual behavior abnormal, but so is their social behavior. Wierd. Frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing. All I can say is: "Next"

I'd say lebanon, Iran, Suadi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and Egypt would be great if you're a man...especially if you're not one of those "one woman" kind of guys, or if you like to beat up or rape your wives, seeing as it's legal in most of these countries.

Hey, it's basically the same thing I'm saying: these days since women are supposed to act like men, they don't have time for kids so they get dogs.

I walk around downtown and I see two things: Men who are trying to figurre out how to earn a buck, and probably worrying aobut how to pay for kids' tuition and retirement down the road. And women, who largely are passing the time working until they get married and pregnant. Sure, there are always exceptions. But that's generally the case. All those left wingers who are hell bent on teaching darwin in schools should maybe drink some of their own koolaid.

You're missing the point. What Obama'ss speech expressed is tantamount to a beaten wrestler submissive, beaten and on the floor face down on the mat saying "can we talk this out?" Why should they? Thee future is Islamic.

No I didn't. If you understood what I wrote, I actually painted them with a POSITIVE brush and US with a negative one. They are the strong, self confident ones. WE are the weak apologetic self-flagellators. And Obama's speech will be viewed by many Muslims in precisely this way. Think about it. When the twin towers fell, they danced in the streets. And now Obama's on the scene to say "we're sorry"

WHo gives a shit what's illegal. Jordan and Egypt madee a huge mistakee in 1967 by starting a war with Israel...they lost the war and some land. Sucks to be you, but it's their own fault. Where I come from, when you start a war and then lose, you gotta eat your own shit. That's why Japan was nuked too. Maybe if kids weren't self-detonating on a bi-weekly basis and sending rockets into residential neughbourhoods, the assholes would be left alone by the militarily superior jews. Meantime, keep your anti-semitism to yourself.

I think when we speak about this subject you need to keep in mind that in large part, the "hating of someone else because of who they are or what they believe" comes mostly from the Muslim side of things. Sure, lefties love to talk about the lack of tolerance over here, but the reality is that after 9-11, the first thing virtually every leader in the western world did was visit a mosque - an odd choice from where I sit. One of the key problems with entering into "discussions" with Islamic society is the - MAJOR - assumption that they want wwhat we do: peace and mutual existence. In many cases, this is not the case at all and it's a weakness to assume everyone in the world sees the world as we do. We are a multicultural society. We choose to accept other peoples' beliefs, religions, lifestyles (to a point). But this is not a global phenomenon. In fact, it's unique to the west and only the west. You can't go to Saudi Arabia and be "multi cultural". Try converting from Islam to christianity in one of those countries and you're liable to end up with no head. You can't blame Obama for giving it a shot, and even for trying a different appraoch, but that doesn't mean anything is truly going to change on the ground. They still pin up pictures of martyrs in convenience stores in the west bank, and childeeren are often encourged to blow themselves up to kill the evil jew. It is a common and arrogant mistakee made by the left: that every other society sees our John Lennon Imagine society as the most desirable and that if we only showeeed them how much we want to apologize to them and be nice, then we'd all live happily ever after. It's actually a warped form of racism to look at brown people and simply those that haven't yet discovered how much we all need to sit in a circle and sing cumbaya and it is us (Obama) who will show them the way. It's naive, because much of Islam doesn't see us as a great society orr even equals, but rather as inferior disgusting pigs that either need to learn how to live like they do or be defeated. The interesting thing is, they WILL defeat the weaker west, because they are willing to take their cause to the ultimate sacrifice for generations on end, while our side get's bored and wants to "pull out troops" after just a few years. At least Bush had some staying power, but now that Obama's in charge, you can bet his constant apologies, acquiescance and concessions will continue to feed their belief that we are weak, inferior and defeatable. As the leader of Hezbollah once said, but hardly ever mentioned by Obamatrons: "we are not fighting to win something in a negotiation with you. we are fighting to eliminate you."

Why doeesn't everyone here just admit a simple truth: women and men are different. Women are nesters, men are hunters. When you try to tell women they should be hunters, many will try it and find it doesn't make them happy. Too bad it's a long term experiment that - demographically - could ultimately mean the demise of our society. I have a question: if darwin was right, then why have all the "advanced" societies all but stopped breeding, ensuring their own extinction. Women are nesters and breeders. Men are hunters. Live with it.

Sure has. These days I don't have to channel surf long before I can find a woman slapping a man in the face, punching him in the face, dumping a drink on a man, throwing his stuff on the lawn, throwing plates at a man...etc. Mostly in the name of "comedy". Of course, if you reversed the roles in any of the above, it would be held out by the "women's" movement (read - loser academics with nothing better to do with their time) as the perpetuation of "violence" against women. You can't have it both ways: this kind of entertainment is either silly or violent, not both depending upon who happens to be bearing the brunt.

I think I'll just leave this one to steyn:

I don't know. I firmly believe that the idea that there are a bunch of gender biased men out there conspiring to "keep the woman down" is a load of crap. Everytime I see a woman in a traditionally non-female position or ina position of power, she proves herself as soon as she starts to speak. And when men see this, 99% of them are willing to give her the same respect as they do men in similar roles. SUre, if she does something mean or "bitchy", men may secretly say "the bitch is at it again" or whatever. But that's no different from women secretly calling man bosses "assholes" or "pricks" or whatever. That's just a kneejerk reaction that somehow always finds its way into gender namecalling regardless of which gender happens to be doing the calling. Anyway, the point is that men aren't generally gender-haters. We are a meritocracy: the law of the jungle. If you can prove your worth around men, you're in. If you can't, you're not. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, green, have 3 breasts and 2 penises. If women could learn to accept this, life would be alot easier for them.

I don't know. I generally have no regard whatsoever for the degenerates who smoke crack, get behind the wheel then flee cops and rrun them over. Beat 'em a little. So what. It's like the whole taser thing: what part of "GET ON THE FLOOR AND DON'T RESIST" do you not understand. If you aree stupid enough not to obey police direction - you open pandora's box and you deserve whatever's comin. Hey, we've all beeen drunk and disorderly a time or two. But I know when I was young and dumb and full of rum, I still knew when to keep my mouth shut and do what the cops wanted.

Mother nature is rarely wrong. If you talk about evolution (something many progressives want to force down everyone's throat), women are hard wired to be nesters, homemakers, mommies and nurturers. WHereas men are hardwired to be hunters, providers and protectors. There are MOST CERTAINLY exceptions to this rule, and I think someone earlier on this post was correct in saying that women do enjoy doing some work that interests them, but don't wanna necessarily go hunt for dollars all day long so that someone else can cook the bacon in the pan. There are many women who enjoy many fields. But these are exceptions. Just look around. You can try to blame the multi billion dollar beauty industry on social indoctrination if you want. But that's just some ugly women with sour grapes. If you actually pay attention to women when they speak you notice that it's in their blood. They're hardwired to want to "be attractive". That's why they instinctively flip their hair or start acting girly and sexy when an eligible attractive financially stable tall male is present. It's not the beauty industry. It's mother nature. Why are women less happy? Possibly because the multi-billion dollar government funded academic women's movement has convinced many women who would be happy to live fullfilling and very important lives as mothers and family builders that that is a shitty life. And that the only way to happiness is to get a career and a job and to "compete along side men". Sure, some women will do this and more power to them. Back to Darwin. Why do you think it is that the majority of university students are women, the majority of law students and medical students today are women. Yet despite decades upon decades of the women's movements best efforts, affirmative action, government legislation, preferred hiring and university acceptamnce standards even in non-trivial fields like firefighting and law enforcement, women still earn less, generally don't reach as high up the corporate ladder and achieve less than men. Why is that? Well the leftozombies who've been regergitating the same dated feminazi playbook since the early 80's would have you believe it's because "men are keeping women down...and we have to redouble our efforts even more". In other words, try even harder to fight mother nature. But if Darwin was right, maybe it's just a natural instinct toward the propogation of the species - the motherly instinct that leads women to lives which balance SOME work with family- so instead of working till 8pm every night to get that high paying partnership, they take mat leave at age 29, then come back to the firm and enjoy a well paying (but not top paying) position in securities law working 9-4pm. Never tto get that partnership at $400K, but hard done by? Discriminated against? No. Hey, men aren't the ones who play with dolls and playhouses and have play weddings when they're 8 years old. So when women grow up and get hitched with kids - that's the dream they've always had since childhood - not the man's. Really, it's mostly men who knuckle down, give up their dreams and lifestyles to wake up every monday morning, go to work in the shitty second car to make his wife's childhood playtime a reality. If we weren't all so societally trained to assume it's always the women who are hard done by, maybe we'd take a moment to question whether men are actually happy running around picking up nickles while women go to university, get their obligatory arts degree while searching for a hubby to paythe mortgage when they get knocked up. My $0.02

I think this topic should be under a different heading: "How the newsmedia can tell complete half truths" I saw CBC air this footage. Unfortunately they failed to air the whole video. I had seen the vid in it's entirety on another channel which showed the guy run over a cop intentionally. Of course, that kind of thing wouldn't interest a network primarly interested in perpetuation of myths about the differences between Americans and Canadians, which of course perpetuates the explanation for the CBC's entire existence: the myth that they "tell Canadian stories". I this idiot ran over a police officer. Everyone in the world knows what that means in the good old days. Good to see things are still settled the old fashioned way in some parts of the world.

Is it racist to make and observation about the characteristics of certain cultures? The reason I ask is that I heear it all the time in the affirmative: "The Germans make superb cars" "The mokatobo tribe is a very caring and communicative mircoculture" "The Chinese excel in math and science" and I also hear it in the negative, albeit limited to certain cultures only: "American tourists are assholes abroad" "Most Americans are fat" Interestingly I rarely hear someone complain about these kinds of statements. Because society accepts them as PC. And also because many stereotypes have some root in the truth - or at least have roots in repeated observations of reality. But if I change the subject of the sentence, so too does the reaction. Just try it: "The Americans make superb cars and the mokatobo tribe are assholes abroad as well as fat." "Many Islamic societies lag badly on women's rights" The only thing that has changed is the subject - not the verbs or the adjectives. But all of a sudden you've got a "racist" statement on your hands. My observation is that most of this reckless use of the word "racist" or "bigot" has been brought about by PC progressives on the left. And it's my strong suspicion that these kinds of accusations aren't genuine in their attempt to further debate, but rather are designed to tar and blackball the speaker to SHUT DOWN debate. As well, if these people ARE genuine in their use of aggressive and accusatory terminology (racist, bigot etc.), I would suggest to them that they are taking the wrong approach. This is similar to the effect of calling every unwelcome male advance a "mini rape" by ultra feminists; all it does is belittle and trivialize the true nature of the word in language as well as true victims of real crime. If "racist" and "bigot" is thrown around as freely as I see it done by leftist progressives in today's society, desensitization will occur and these strong words will lose their effect. But I digress. Question: Is it possible that the draconian assault on discussion and language by the left is approaching orwellian levels? Are we still allowed to make observations about our increasingly diverse society without being hauled out in front of the language police? Leftists are fond of pointing out flaws in our own society. So shouldn't it be just as acceptable to point our flaws in new members of our society? Isn't insulating these people from criticism a de facto exclusion of them from the equal and proper adult debate that makes us all equal members of society to begin with? I once heeard an intelligent man say that what we need is less "sensitivity training" and more "de-sensitivity training". As a straight white male I take my fair share of name calling and bear the brunt of many jokes on television everyday. And I take it...with a smile. Maybe everyone else could try the same. Or does that make me "racist"?

Yes - being on a "mission from god" is absolutely frightening. Except of course if you're Islamic. Then you're just "misunderstood" and "more moderate than most people realize" You know what's truly "absolutely frightening"? A double standard aimed directly at villifying a comparatively sane western world when stacked up against the goons in the middle east, then using reverse racism to elevate thugs to "equals" and relegate bold and courages US Presidents to "thugs" all in the name of leftist progressivist societal self-hatred mostly espoused by the losers in the western world who could never make it for themselves so they channel their passive aggresive bullshit into a political cause which allows you to be "better" than everyone else without ever having to achieve anything. F*cking disgusting.

Priviledges? Men aren't wired the same as women. Lot's don't live their whole lives consciously or subconsciously desiring to "have a baby" someday. This is about decision and responsibility plain and simple. If you want full control over the decision, then you should bear full resposibility. OR you could admit that women biologically are built to breed and therefore when they don't end up earning what men do they could maybe stop feverishly pointing the finger at men and instead blame the true culprit: mother nature. Logically speaking, you can't have it both ways. Women need to either take resposibility for their decisions or admit that they are biologically disadvantaged.