JerrySeinfeld

All you lefties are so hot for the multi culti you don't even see that it's YOU that I'm targeting here - not muslims per se. A major problem here isn't simlpy the behavior - ie. honour killings. It's your reaction to them. We have a choice as a society to talk about this and condemn this. Or to turn our back and pretend it's not happening - as per... ahem... YOU.

Precisely.

That's bullshit. That's not what I'm after. I'm pointing out two glaring obvious observations: 1. Honour Killing is a distinctly muslim phenomenon which is related to the more devout aspects of that religion's oppression of women. This is an indisputable fact. This is also something that may be accepted or acquiesced to in other countries or societies. However we should, instead of ignoring this phenomenon on the basis of "tolerance", be making an effort to discourage the mysoginy that exists in the harder core aspects of the religion which ultimately leads to these preventable murders. Every December 6 women and men march with lighted candles in memory of the women killed during the montreal massacre. This march is meant to direct attention to the violence against women perpetrated by one group of people: men. If we can single out an entire gender as aggressive toward women, why can't we single out a religion? For the record, by the way, Marc Lepine, the shooter at the montreal massacre, was born Ghamil Gharbi - son of a muslim wife beater. 2. In some western societies, we are already seeing not only aqcuiescance - ie. "hey it's just anothermurder", but in fact a change in legal policy on the grounds of "sensitivity" as per the australian police force's willingness to look the other way when it comes to muslim domestic violence.

... or maybe we should change the rules to accomodate "diversity"

You're kind of close. We don't assign different values to murder. But the discussion certainly is about values. Cultural ones, that is, and what "values" we will and will not tolerate in this country.

What Part of willfully blind ignorance do you enjoy most?

There wouldn't be any difference if every male, white or otherwise, was killing his family randomly. However, the difference arises when a pattern emerges - ie. muslim men killing women in their family based upon their MUSLIM religious ideals. They are called "honour killings" in the muslim faith. And pretending they don't exist, or ignoring their significance within the muslim religion is more culturally ignorant than those "bigots" who paint all muslims with the same brush. It's a problem in the faith and to say otherwise is ignorant and willfully blind in the name of "sensitivity", and frankly, sick.

hahahahahahahahahahah yes, I'm sure that's how things operate at the ol' white house - you know the office of the Commander in Chief... Clinton: "Hey George, as President I would like to let you in on a little secret: Bin Laden is going to attack" Bush: "Well, that's too bad. I don't give a shit about thousands of innocent American lives. I'm ignoring you because I'm an evil war mongering friend of big oil." I love how the left thinks the world works. It's great for a laugh.

Within 1 year, 8 months of clinton leaving office the stock market had crashed and 3,000 people died in the first ever major terrorist attack on American soil. On Clinton's watch? I would say yes. If you disagree, you would also accept that Obama is to blame for the upcoming deep US recession, no?

You're missing the point. It's not about "embracing" horrid behavior. It's about realizing that war is ugly. It's about not demonizing our troops and the macro effort at every turn, or every time a few troops do something stupid. It's about realizing that our beloved, VICTORIOUS soldiers probably didn't always follow the text book in their fight to defeat the nazis. But they got the job done. It's about balance of reporting. Instead of 3 to 1 "atrocities" (a stretch) / "thing are going horribly" to "victorious in battle". Why not give an even score or even bias it the other way? Militaries don't lose or win wars, NATIONS do. And that involves the will to win. Obama...er. OSAMA said it best: in a long race, the strong horse will win. And in this case, the strong horse ISN'T the country that's willing to throw it's soldiers, military, ENTIRE WAR EFFORT under the bus every time something unpleasant shows up in the news. NEWSFLASH: WAR IS UNPLEASANT. The question is, do we want to endure this unpleasantness on the pathway to victory, or do we want to wallow in it in defeat - as per vietnam? The problem is, with this generation, every war is vietnam and every conflict is NOT worth fighting - as per the hippies of the '70s. If this is the attitude we carry with us as a society, I ask you - can we ever again win a war? I say no. And this is why the characters from the nastier bits or our world will continue to "test" us. Because they are realizing this about us. Look at how Russia is bandying about these days. They KNOW they've got an appeaser on their hands now in the white house. That attitude (nothing is worth going to war for) is majorly wrongheaded. We (the west) are WINNING in Iraq. Let's not forget that at a time when a surrender-monkey (please - no cries of racism) has just been elected. And as a side note, I'd like to know what people think about "fighting by the rules" these days. I mean, the enemy doesn't. Why should we?

Let me quickly address Katrina. I believe the backlash toward Bush re: Katrina is far overdone. From what I have read and seen on TV regarding the response to Katrina, the Governor or Louisiana, a Democrat, and the Mayor of New Orleans, a Democrat was far more responsible in law for a quick and accurate response to the conditions on the ground including a more thorough evacuation. You can't blame GW Bush for the levees breaking, and what occured afterward was very difficult to contain, given the disease riddled waters and live power lines in the water. There were organizational breakdowns on almost every level, but particularly at the local and state level with respcet to the police, fire resuce and national guard (governors responsibility). The only reason Bush has been held to such account is because 1. Due to Bush Derangement Syndrome, he's the fall guy for just about everything that has gone wrong in the past 8 years regadrless of accuracy. and 2. When it came time for the Mayor and the Governor to act, they did nothing, and instead passed the buck - and the blame - up the chain of "power". But they waited long enough to do so that it looked like the upper chains of power were to blame. As for "torture and human rights abuses", I think this is a farce and an issue that needs to be talked about more. For example, take a look at ABU GRAIB prison. This was such a minor deal. On the day after we honoured our veterans from ALL wars, you don't think wars throughout our history have gotten messy and ugly? The fact that we have an instant information age has brought home some of this ugliness that wars bring. However, I don't fault our soldiers or place this war in some other "terrible" category not reserved for the other wars our great nations have fought. I believe this kind of thing occurs in all wars. What IS terrible is that we are expected - by our own citizens no less - to fight a "humanitarian, clean" war with one hand tied behind our backs while we no longer fight an enemy who respects any aspect of the geneva convention - including HIDING IN CIVILIAN AREAS FOR PROTECTION, kidnapping civilians as hostages, refusing to wear uniforms identifying them as combatants, etc etc etc. If the enemy is going to fight dirty, we have to respond in kind. The real issue that ABU GRAIB prison raised isn't the "horrid" behavior of our soldiers. WHat it did is highlight the willingness of a nation to have absolutely no intetinal fortitude and to choose defeat over victory due to one or two lousy images. It's really the polar opposite of the Images of the Iwo Jima flag raising. See - in the past nations rallied around images of victory - false or otherwise. Today, they rally aruond images of defeat - false or otherwise...and then go out and vote for that defeat.

Let's look ahead. Afghanistan: Obama may well be able to move troops gradually from Iraq to Afghanistan. Iran: If he does "talk" with Iran, he's doing so from a position of relative strength, no? Perhaps not 2 years ago, but right now. Iraq is in a state of relative peace. Granted, it's fragile, but the militants have retreated. The sunni triangle is remarkable safe. The level of violence is at all time lows. Saddam has been deposed. The americans are in control. The insurgency (largely supported, funded an armed by Iran) is, at least for now, squashed. The Mid-East: A better, stronger presence of liberty and western democracy than in any previous decade. Given the success in Iraq, the west is in a stronger, more confident position to win in Afghanistan. It appears that Obama's position as leader of the US is actually quite strong going into any future negotiations or troop movements in the region. It also appears that, as opposed to the play-time faux "peace" to which we have been treated in previous administrations (we've all seen the phoney "peace" photo-ops on the white house lawn term after term), what President Bush has finally and mercifully done is smash the faux-peace and get on with the long, ugly and difficult business of actually fighting for, creating and defending the institutions of liberty. It is this kind of strength and leadership in the face of unpopularity that: 1. Has finally started a new beginning in the mid-east (for which Obama will undoubtedly get much credit) and 2. Will forever place George W Bush as one of the greatest and strongest Presidents in our history

Stating an irrelevant fact about the past is harping. Were the past two elections extremely close? Yes. Was this one? Yes. Is your (and other liberals) incessant and irrational need to bring up GW Bush every time someone mentions a potential weakness in your guy just another sign of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Yes. The fact that this election was close and that Obama won by a slim margin isn't disputable, despite your efforts to distract from the issue by (yawn) bringing up the "evil bush" yet again. So yes. Bringing up a fact about the past is, in fact, harping. I never predicted a McCain win. I may have mentioned on here that he still has a chance, that's it. The highest %-age of popular vote since...the current President? Wow. What an achievement. Blue ribbons all around! No I wouldn't. I like a US with a strong military presence and tax cuts. Unfortunately your scenario is: 1. Ridiculous because you've basically described McCain's campaign promises. and 2. Ridiculous because that's not Obama's style. If you changed "ride into the inauguration on the back of a fire breathing unicorn holding Osama bin Ladens bloody, still-beating heart in one hand" into "call up Osama Bin Laden on his iPhone for a meaningless non-precondition meeting over tea and crumpets" and then changed your "billions of dollars in tax cut legislation" to "billions of dollars in tax INCREASE legislation", you'd be closer to the mark. In sum, you're basically ridiculous all the way around.

Classic. Only a left wing liberal could take that clip of a rabid child-intimidating partisan biased indoctrinating teacher and spin it to illustrate how "narrow minded" conservatives are.

Harp about the past all day long if you want. Given the massive unpopularity of the sitting president, the horrid condition of the economy and financial markets, two unpopular wars, a soaring unemployment rate and an ornery electorate, the fact that Obama only managed to garner ever so slightly north of half the popular vote isn't very impressive. As with the Primaries versus Hillary, while the press couldn't wait for a coronation, they basically had to drag Obama across the finish line with every biased effort possible. For a guy who's suppose to be such a captivating inspirational country-saving orator...for an campaign who's trademark was huge 100,000+ person rallies, stadium speeches and greek god-like columns onstage, for a man who planned ahead for a 300,000+ person acceptance speech, his results were pretty meagre. Hopefully, for the sake of the american public, these anemic election results juxtaposed next to the BIG SHOW campaign aren't an indication of what we can expect for the next 4 years. Obama's a good talker, but as we saw in his first press conference, those "words of hope and ispiration" are already starting to ring hollow in the reality of the economic slump.

Obama supporter about sums it up.

Link Doesn't anyone else think that this "I find that offensive" crap is getting old? I say you find that offensive? SO WHAT! It's a free country. People need to develop a thicker skin. Everyone's been drinking the "sensitivity" kool-aid for far too long.

I wonder how the deportation of his aunt will go, now that he is president.

I think McCain and his avisors made a calculation: they could neutralize the Obama star factor and force Democrats to raise the issue of experience - which of course would shine the spotlight on Obama's lack of experience and it worked for awhile - I remember seeing the look on Pundits' faces - democrat pundits who are usually sharp and ruthless - and they looked genuinely at a loss - confused and defensive - for a couple of days. What McCain didn't count on is the relentless MSMedia efforts at "investigating" her (and their complete and utter lack of similar efforts on Obama's past associations). That sunk her. She represents what every successful Republican candidate should be: a real conservative. Americans want that in their hearts. Unfortunately, the republicans have played their hand for awhile. People hate Bush, no thanks to the media, hollywood and just about every other country in the world. Even a dyed in the wool, star power conservative like Palin can't beat those odds. Next time, boys. Next time.

You: "Nobody's changed their minds on the gipper" So in your words, everybody loves him. Barack only got 52% of the vote. McCain ran a shitty campaign and was the victim of Bush's miserable approval ratings and still got 48%. I'd think twice before tossing the whole party on the ash heap of history. I'd say the GOP is a couple of Obama tax increases, one major international military incident and Schwartznegger-esque type speechmaker away from another 8 years beginning in 2012. The American people truly want a servant leader - not a saviour. A small government man with the basic ideals of individualism, liberty, military toughness and opportunity. This is what Americans want to vote for. McCain didn't give it to them, and plus times are tough so once in awhile they'll throw the Dems a bone every 12 or so years. It's the opposite of what happens in Canada, really. Carter round two will have it's day, Iran will have it's nuke and the Republicans will be back.

I was on some site called Rabble where a couple of feminazis were talking about pay equity and other scams aimed at getting more money than you've earned. Anyway, one of the fine ladies mentioned that she was at a dentist and a girl asked her if she wanted something to read and after sifting through a Macleans etc. she was presented with Glamour etc. Needless to say, the feminist was quite "offended". I say: BIG DEAL. I don't think we need sensitivity training in this world. I suggest the opposite: DE-sensitivity training. That way everyone would get a thicker skin and stop complaining every time they are "offended". Since when is that a right, anyway? "Not to be offended". What about the right to do whatever you damn well please, unless you directly harm someone else? I live in a very multicultural area. As a white male, I walk through life consistently hearing snide or condescending remarks fro minorities or women about "stupid white men" or "men aren't too bright" or "what do you expect from a WHITE person..." etc etc. I hear it on telephone conversations in the elevator. Minorities complaining that "the party/bar was lame, just a bunch of loser white people there..." etc etc etc. Am I offended? No. So why am I bothered? Not because I care what some guy in the elevator says. But rather because they would care if the tables were turned. Everyone needs to either: 1. Develop a thicker skin, man up and put up with snide race-based or gender-based remarks the same way white males do or 2. Start treating others as you would be treated yourself I'd prefer option 1. If women and minorities truly want to be "equal" with white males, they should try to emulate their coolness when faced with immature remarks about race and gender. Why be a child when you can act like an adult?

So far Obama: Friends with Terrorists Racist Pastor of 20 years Black Panthers Intimidating Voters at Polling Stations AND HE'S NOT EVEN IN OFFICE YET. Can't wait for the next 4 years.

Hey dude, we're talking about the NEW president. The one elected yesterday. Not four years ago. Are you so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that your stock answer for anything is: "So What? Look at BUSH!!!" Nice argument.

Interestingly, McCain was a victim of his own success. He championed the surge... ...which was very successful... ...which led to largely peace in Iraq, and who want's to fill the news headlines with "peace"?... ...which erased it from the news... ...which made his security platform less relevant.... ...which forced him to talk about non-strength issues (economy)... ...which led to loss. Obama, on the other hand, benefitted from despair. One other thing: SOme say this dude is the great new leader. However, step back from the froth for a minute and examine. He won by only 4%. Was dragged across the finish line by the media. And is quite possibly the benefit of some of the most well aligned coincidental circumstances in history. Public tired of war. Hatred of the incumbant. Elderly, disorganized, futile opponent. And to top it off, as his opponent took the lead, the world stock markets crashed. Just in time.