JerrySeinfeld

Hahaha. That tells me how much you know about Iranian politics. Ahmedinejad or not doesn't really matter - he is just the puppet of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs in that country who truly ocntrol the strings of power. As I said - we'll find out how ell Obama's "strategy" works. But in reality - I think Sharkman's post above is closer to reality: when it comes down to brass tax Obama will behave much as Bush did - along with the military tribunals, the "closing" of guantanamo, the release of pictures and others. It's obvious now that he's in office, that Obama is seeing reality as clearly as Bush once did. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" I guess we'll see if Obama has a stick at all.

A fundamentalist islamic president who is on record as wanting to wipe Israel off the map, has an ongoing nuclear program of enriching uranium, refuses to curtail said program in the face of international pressure, and now Obama "extends a hand" offering his country "full membership" in the interbnational community - and he responds by firing off a long range missile. And you imagine that I'm "fear mongering?" What colour is the sky in your world, buddy. As I said - we'll all soon find out how Obama's approach works out for the world.

You're funny Kimmy. But you gotta check out the grocery store on a Tuesday morning at 11am. It's completely different. It's slow paced and filled with a bunch of mommy's pushing strollers around leisurely whilst talking about their favourite yoga spot with friends. Maybe it's because I shop in Kitsilano.

Filed in the |major understatement" category even your beloved administration has said this is "a step in the wrong direction". Indeed your theory of sitting in the oval office closing ones eyes and playing "Imagine" over and over again on the record player is being floated by the current administration. While the idea of doing nothing but talking alot certainly fits in with Obama's aspirations of ultra "eurocool" - I guess we're all about to find out how it works out.

Women are less happy because they have followed the path of independence and profession over that of family, marriage, childeren and romantic connection - on the advice of "women's" leaders who are usually miserable man-hating lesbians with 8 cats. While it's a good thing that women have options and the freedom to choose their path in life, many are finding that choosing a profession over marriage and childeren is metaphorically spitting into a strong genetic wind; a genetic predisposition of women to seek out love, marriage, family, childeren and homemaking. If you thinkl I'm wrong just look at the ashen grey faces of the women who attend an offfice everyday. Then go to the local grocery store and see the glowing faces of the pregnant or new moms: they are where they want to be - whether they're willing to admit it or not.

While Obama "talks" the talk...Iran walks the walk. Clearly the pre-election rhetoric suggesting that if we all just sing cumbaya together...if only we're a little nicer to those who hate us, then everyone will love us - is proving to be a load of crap. The inevitable conclusion is one of two: 1. Iran blows up another country or 2. Obama grows a backbone and - more than he already has - again flip flops on his pre election language and reaffirms the correctness of his predecessor in the tough backbone approach.

But wait. Abortion and it's very legal existence states that just because a woman is pregnant doesn't mean she's having a baby. In fact, a woman has the legal right to NOT have a baby. In the current legal environment, the decision to have a baby isn't made upon conception, it's made by the woman ON HER OWN. So your statement above that a man should "take resposibility for his own actions" is invalid. The birth of a child is not inevitable UNTIL A WOMAN CHOOSES IT TO BE SO - ie. by her actions and her actions alone. In reality, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS THE WOMAN WHO SOLELY AND ALONE ENTIRELY CHOOSES WHETHER OR NOT TO BE PREGNANT, IT IS THE WOMAN SHOULD SOLELY ALONE AND ENTIRELY BEAR RESPOSIBILITY FOR THAT CHOICE.

And since they've won that war, overthrown a violent murderous dictator who gassed and killed 30,000 of his own citizens - and establish a burgeoning democracy in his place, turns out they were right.

Well first of all - according to some it's not his "childeren" right away - it can be aborted. Second, you have touched upon an interesting point when you say "not everything in life can be perfectly fair". True. So in the spirit of that thought we should also realize that until men themselves start having babies, they'll have pay and seniority advantages over those that do have babies and leave the workforce for several months on several occasions to HAVE babies. Thank you for ackowledging a very important point that many in the women's movement seem to intentionally ignore: things can't always be fair, because women give birth. Thank you.

Watching the other abortion debates online here I decided to post this question for debate: Most women claim full control over their own bodies - ie. the choice of whether orr not to abort. But in most areas of life, full control also means full responsibility. But that's not what happeens with birth. Many Women make the choice to have a baby - having full control over the decision - but then end of making OTHERS accountable for that decision in the form of child support payments or even government assistance. Isn't that, well...childish? (pardon the pun) So my question is this: if Women are to have full control of the abortion decision - then shouldn't they also absolve Men of any financial resposibility for the baby if it is born? And by the same token, if Men have no say in birth, then why should they bear any responsibility? I mean, I can see where if a man and a woman TOGETHER decide to have a baby, then the man should pay too. But if a Man doesn't want the baby and the woman does, then why should the man (or the taxpayer) have to pay anything at all to someone who claims full adult resposibility for the decision? If men are to bear financial resposibility for any born childeren, then shouldn't they also be allowed to play a role in the abortion decision? Food for discussion.

aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Don't you mean "the debate over prisoner mistreatment is still roiling in the faculty lounges of America's social science departments and left wing media outlets"? hahahahahahahaha. Nobody else gives a shit about these terrorist assholes.

So, one minute you're upset because Bush didn't heed the warnings of 9-11. And the next, you're angry at "Bush & Co." for heeding warnings on potential attacks against LA. Wierd.

With the death spiral that is conventional newspapers, At $0.03 per share, Quebecor world is perhaps overpriced. This is a "yesterday" business. Long live the right wing online blogger!

Great. The left elects a president based upon his colour, and now they're gonna appoint judges based upon sexual orientation. And yet somehow, some way, the left escapes scrutiny about judgeing people based upon skin colour or sexual orientation. It's the left that is MOST guilty of that. This wouldn't surprise me at all.

Firts of all, the above statement shows a lack of basic math skills. Regardless of starting value, 5% is still 5%. But I digress. Fluctuations in stock/real estate markets (which almost always overshoot in both directions) are a separate issue from the actualy measured size of the economy. You said that reaganomics "destroyed the economy" (and I quote). That's a chicken little statement. The US GDP has contracted exactly 3% from it's peak. That's hardly "destruction". That means the economy produced 97% of what it did at it's all time peak about a year ago. No it didn't. US Real GDP at the end of Reagan's term: $6.6 trillion. US Real GDP in January 2008: $11.6 trillion US Real GDP in January 2009: $11.3 trillion So in January 2009, the depths of the "burst bubble", we saw a "whopping" 2.6% decline in overall GDP. If that's "destruction" of the economy, I think it's prety clear who it is that needs the economics lesson. But I will concede that there was somewhat of a housing bubble created by legislation enacted largely due to pressure from Barack Obama's ACORN, which pressured financial institutions to make more risky loans so that minorities and other bad credit risks could "own" a home. Of course, investment banks were culpable too in that they used poor credit mortages to leverage up and create CDOs and other levered mortage-backed paper which ultimately led to the serious asset write downs and subsequent banking problems we see today. Based upon early reports leaked from thursday's upcoming "stress test" results on the biggest US banks, 10 of the 19 will need to partially re-capitalize. While that's not good news, it's encouraging to hear that news instead of what people feared a while back, which was many many bank failures. Of course the creation of these levered financial vehicles came as a result of the fact that 1. The crappy loans wo poor credit risk minorities were even made in the first place - thanks in large part to Barack and his ACORN buddies. and 2. Repealed Glass Steagall act, passed by a republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Both of which hardly can be placed upon Ronald Reagan. And now that the markets have recovered 30% from march lows largely in anticipation of a late year economic recovery, we can see that this is a result of the free market pricing out the losers, forcing the unsustainable into chapter 11 then allowing the survivors to recover with big gains - and not a result of Barack spening $2 trillion on STD testing and "save the tree" initiatives. Whatever miniscule economic value the stimulous will actually provide won't hit the economy until late this year or early next and even afterward, which means it'll be the absolute worst timing possible as it will compound the already massive ocean of dollars that have been printed by the federal reserve during it's brief but effect "quantitative easing" - meaning that Obama and his ilk's "stimulous" will arrive just in time to cause a rocket up in inflation and renewed economic concerns just as we're starting to see normailized growth. Great. Just one more of the gazillion examples of why government should stay the hell out of the economy. But hey, no problem, because we don't have to pay for all that debt anyway, right? Our grand childeren have already been pre-approved...by us. Lovely job Barack. Or...we could just let markets sort out the winners and losers efficiently as they always have. Why would I do that. In a free enterprise world it would be a toll bridge built and operated by a private company where only the people who USE it would PAY for it, keeping taxes at close to zero for everyone. Then we'd all have more money in our jeans and we wouldn't have to ride bikes around.

I love this topic. Why? Because it's a chance to see all the left wing 9-11 conspiracy theorists' heads explode.

"destruction" of our economy? hahahahaha. the US economy has contracted about 5%. Meanwhile the growth from Reagan's massive tax cuts and deregulation was one of the longest and most prosperous growth periods in history. Of course, anyone who espouses that "government is the answer" everytime your paycheck doesn't arrive as quickly as the milk from yo mama's teet wouldn't understand that in fact the odd correction is a natural part of free enterprise growth cycles. you should read "chicken little" you might learn something. people are such little childeren these days, everytime the unemployment rate goes up the go crying to the government like it's their mama. if you don' have enough money to pay your rent between jobs, that's more of a reflection of college-kid financial planning and and irresposibility than it is of the fact that mama government didn't spend enough on bridges. why don't you just take care of your own adult responsibilities like a real man instead of whining that you need someone else's help? I love these people at the tea parties because they are like minded economic thinkers: ie. enough confiscating my mony with the promise that you'll "take care of things". I can take car of myself thank you very much. THAT is the message. It's fundamentally a tug of war between people who see themselves as freeborn adult citizens versus those who see themselves as overgrown adolescents who haven't yet figured out how to go it alone. Unfortunately for us free born adults, more and more adolescents are joining the dole and confiscating more and more of our hard earned money. Sad.

Haha. Funny stuff, K. Actually, you've captured the problem with the apologists on the left, including Obama (and new official US foreign policy): "If we only apologize just a little bit more, maybe they'll stop hating us. 9-11/Radical Islam/Clash of civilizations is OUR fault."

Is it just me or is CBC the one network that dedicates far more time an energy to reporting the fate of this scumbag than anyone else?

If the disease comes from Mexico, what's wrong with staying away from people who come across the border from Mexico. That's not "racism", that's commons sense. Oh...wait. In the name of multicultural sensitivity, maybe we should grab the first mexican we see and breath in his exhale.

totally. global warming IS good for canada. more arable land. warmer winters (and summers!).

I read an interesting article in the NP today and it struck me as "oustide the box" in terms of the usual blathering on this site, albeit still along the same debate lines. It has to do with the things Obama is doing to America and how it can help Canada, particularly when it comes to increasing the size of government and commensurate tax increases. Have a look. Here is an exerpt: Link to full (short) article. Is it possible that we're on the road to business and economic advantage while the US takes our past (and sickening road) to cradle to grave tax and spend socialism? Is Canada the new "last bastion of economic liberty"?

Whatever. The US successfully foiled a 9-11 style attack on Los Angeles thanks to information extracted from Khaleid Sheikh Mohamed during waterboarding. If not for the information, maybe susan sarandon and sean penn would have been blown up then we wouldn't have to debate this phony baloney red herring. I'm not even angry any more at Obama's complete stupidity; I'm baffled by it. The US "extends a hand" to Iran and not even a week later Ahmedinajadh shows up at a UN function and gives a venomous racist diatraibe for all the world to see. Keep dreamin Barack. Meanwhile in the real world, the thugs are dancing with joy at your Naivity. Your attempts at worldliness may be playing well back home on "The View", but your enemies see them for what they are: weakness. If Barry actually goes through with closing gitmo and banning "aggressive interrogation", don't be surprised to see more attacks - if not in the US, then somewhere else. Of course, the New York Times already has a plan in place for those attacks. from the NYT: Wow. un freaking believable. Not only does the left realize that their actions are endagering people, but they're already making excuses for making the world a more dangerous place.

It doesnt' surprise me that people who are the richest earn more and more all the time and the others stay stagnant. A market economy rewards merit, innovation, investment and risk taking. For the ignorant masses in both Canada and the US content to "put in their time" at a job, live in mediocrity their whole lives and wait for the government to make things better for them, there are no rewards. Tough shit.

I'm not sure about that. You see, throughout history, in every war the "west" has ever fought, our soldiers have been involved in some pretty shady stuff with the endgame of victory for the good guys. It's only during today's Iraq war in the age of instant information and the microscope media - which, by the way, largely opposes the war - that these indiscretions get scrutinized. These kinds of tactics have always been used by our side as well as theirs - where do you think the "need" for the geneva conventions even came from? But the geneva conventions are kind of like Kyoto - everyone signs on, then no one follows it. To live in some kind of dreamworld where our side lives in some kind of "moral high ground" that we've always occupied and always cornered the market on is naive and dreamy - kind of like Obama's entire presidency. The reason the scrutiny is so heavy isn't because of some long-held "moral high ground". That's just bullshit being fed by people who oppose the war - which is clearly evident on this forum. It's actually kind of sad that the importance of the battle between our side and Islamofascism has actually been reduced to a petty argument about the treatment of a handful of mass murderers and those who have turned this into the main issue should be ashamed of themselves. In the past, entire nations went to war - even the folks back home. Today, war has been reduced by the elite left into a ghettoized function performed by someone else whilst the left stays home and bashes the entire effort based upon some hard nosed interrogation techniques while the enemy fights with both hands free. Sad, really. Did you know that one of the most commonly referred-to techniques taught to Terrorists and Al Qaeda is to compain of "prisoner abuse"? Why? Because they know our society's penchant for self hatred and apology. Or as one famous Imam said of Islam: "WE WILL USE YOUR DEMOCRACY TO DESTROY YOUR DEMOCRACY"