JerrySeinfeld

Yes. And as I stated previously - this is a to the bank. The bank does not "win either way" as you had stated.The reason the buyer loses is because he doesn't pay what he owes. That's his fault. The reason the bank loses is because it took a risk on a borrower who obviously ultimately couldn't pay his debts: that's their fault. The borrower loses and the bank loses. That's the business transaction here. That's not the bank's fault. That's what the market will bear. You are revealing a very limited knowledge of economics here. Land developers don't "make bigger houses". Land developers make what they can sell. They put together pojects which will sell to the public. What will sell to the public, you ask? Whatever they demand. A land developer doesn't just go out and build neighborhoods full of big houses on the hope that they can sell them. They sell them first. Then they build them. Please explain me how a bank that lends someone $500,000 to build a house, then forecloses and takes posession of a house now valued at $350,000 is gaining? Meantime - why don't you look up the share price of Citigroup, which has lost 40% of it's value since the spring when this whole US subprime thing started to rear it's ugly head. I'm sure the shareholders wouldn't share your view that the banks "win either way".

OK - but I was reacting to your comment - and the commonly held misperception - that men "can't show their emotions". I woiuld make a case that in fact men can and do show their emotions. But generally we are in more control of when and how we show them - which to me isn't a bad thing at all and I would consider it mature.

This idea is the pinnacle of the multiculturalist dream. God help us.

I know a good "anti crime" initiative that wouldn't cost a cent: stop allowing murder prone Jamaican men to immigrate and infest the streets of Toronto. On the confidence motion i wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't. The Libs are scared to death of an election right now. It would pass.

People who say the "root causes" of 9-11 was really the fault of the U.S. must love this story: blame the victim!

What's so great about showing your emotions. Sure - in private is fine. But all the time? I think girls crying in the workplace is brutal. Get ahold of yourself - you're an adult! Same goes for temper tantrums and other "displays of emotion". Kind of off topic mind you.

The bank doesn't "win either way". Banks are in the lending business, not the housing speculation business. To end up owning a house that has declined 30% in value since the mortgage was assigned is not a win anyway you look at it. That is why the banks have been taking the major write downs you've been hearing about. I think this is one dimensional thinking to say it's "depression". The US economy is still growing and people are still working. Some of them just might end up renting now instead of owning 5,000 square foot homes and two brand new cars on $90,000 per year pre tax. I think it's a healthy real estate correction - one we could probably use here in Canada. People who speculate on real estate thinking it "always goes up" need a good pummelling once in awhile. Realtors who advise people to leverage 20 times on an investment property should be subject to prosecution. My two cents.

I agree with alot of what you are saying. I think "neutering" boys is wrong. Look. Almost everything good we have in this world came from the male drive for adventure, competition and success. To turn our schools into a girlfriendly world focussed on self esteem and not achievement will ultimately end up being a mistake.

ANyone who believes these things about capitalism has never really participated in business. If you spent a year hanging around businesses and their management from various sectors you would see a completely disorganized mosaic of people trying to make sense of their environment, understand the challenges and opportunities, adapt to changing legislative, monetary, environmental, political, tax, labour, interest rate, financial landscapes and make money in the process. Not only that, but capitalists by their very definition are in competition with eachother if I can factor in all of the above mentinoed challenges and still see a viable plan to embark upon a profitable enterprise, the last thing I'd want to do is share it with the businessman down the block so that he can get in no it too, reduce my profit and increase the competition. The idea that capitalists as a "group" have a master plan to take over the world is to see the world from a centrally planned (ie. communist) point of view, which is why Klein is so good a visualizing such a scenario while being completely out of touch with reality; she sees the world from her point of view. To say that capitalists profit from other people's misery is to see the world with free-enterprise-hating blinders on. Capitalists profit from all kinds of things. They profit from other people's happiness. They profit from people getting better health care, better drugs. Capitalists profit from higher oil prices. Capitals profit from lower oil proces. Capitalsts profit from war. Capitalists profit from peace. Capitalist....well...profit, period (but not all the time!). If I a volcano flattens some far off city and a whole bunch of governments want to help rebuild the roads, heck as an infrastructure contractor I'm gonna put my bid in for the job. That doesn't mak me a global conspirator.

Setting aside all that we've been indoctrinated and making simple observations, groups of people are different. Not better, not worse. Different. Even the hard core leftist political correcties admit this. Not explicity, but they do when they make durogatory comments about "white males" or "americans". Just yesterday i was booking a trip and a travel agent said "it's a good idea to go to cuba in the near term, because when castro dies there will be a new government and americans will be travelling there - so it's a good time to go before there are americans there." Huh? Imagine if someone said that, but substituted "black people" for "americans". I remember once an NFL oddsmaker they called "Jimmy the Greek" was fired from a major network for stating that black athletes have succeeded as a group because the slave trade brought over to american the most physically elite of the africans. This is a perfect example of pure and simple truth being silenced in the name of public brainwashing. Why are people so afraid of the truth? Isn't truth a good thing? This nobel laureate fellow may have some interesting points. Science is about truth, and shouldn't be clouded by politics. That said, the truth about groups also always has exceptions. When it comes to jobs or promotinos, it has to be evaluated on an individual basis.

Sounds smart to me.

I disagree. I used to be a flaming liberal until I got mature, realistic, practical and just generally smart. That's how I know how warped the left wing thinking is - I used to do it firsthand.

Has anyone heard about or read this pieces of shit? I haven't read it yet, but I have read an extensive interview with Klein on the thesis and have also listened to a speech given by her on the book's subject. As I understand it, she has this pet conspirancy theory that basically posits that "the capitalists" (as if there is a big organized mob similar to star trek's "borg") take advantage (and create?) disasters worldwide so that they can come in and establish a free enterprise system wherever these disasters take place. What planet is this woman on? In her speech she sounded like she was desperately clinging to the concept that the battle between socialism and capitalism is even in fact still undecided! Here are some reviews

First of all, no where on this thread have I directed any anger at women - just maybe a little frustration with society in general. Second, the co-execuitive producer of Everybody Loves Raymond Kathy Ann Stump. Creator of Home Improvement Carmen Finestra. These are women. There were men involved, too. Men and women. I agree with your observation about the average guy with the decent looking wife. But at least in king of queens it remains true to life: the wife starts out hot but later on she's packed on alot of poundage. But I digress - actually we all do. The book deals with a pretty serious subject: the marginalization of boys and all things male during the formative years. If (and I am even emphasizing the word "if" here so we don't have to argue about this for a minute) girls are in fact being "favored" in school. IE. Getting more encouragement to join math leagues or become lawyers, boys being told not to play "rough" at recess, girls being listened to by teachers in class more, girls getting more encouragement or breaks to join teams etc., then where would that leave boys? Isn't this a bad thing if it's the case? In a totally separate TV show I saw a psychologist suggesting that in fact most ADD cases just magically "go away". And as I understand it, ADD is mostly a boy thing. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but it makes me wonder - is ADD real? Or is it just behavior that, somewhere along the anti-boy pilgrimage, just became unacceptable, non-"girl like" behavior? Some things to think about.

The difference is you didn't have defeatists at home demanding that you do it before we stormed the beaches at normandy

No, this thread is about the war against BOYS. But for the record, it is exactly this type of thinking that has led to the fight to "bring down" boys. From what I have seen in the shows mentioned I don't see the women doing any more cooking or cleaning than the women, with the exception of the simpsons which is satire and stereotype through and through right down to the cop that lokos like a pig and eats doughtnuts. That's a good start then. Then you would agree with the other feminists mentioned in the book - and you'd be wrong. But it's always refreshing to see the roles reverse (the right wingers looking for improvements and changes to the system, and the lefties insisting nothing needs to be changed - everythings just fine the way it is) As for you comment about violence against men, I would like to pick it apart a bit. As far as severity, I'd probably agree with you that violence against women is more severe (men are, after all, generally much stronger than women). But in terms of scale, I would expect that in fact less severe, more frequent acts of violence against men are much greater in scale than vise versa. Almost every man I know has his stories of his woman throwing plates / punching / shoving / slapping him. And the main issue on this thread deals with the concpet that it's accepted in society. A woman committing acts of violence against a man is not only accepted in society, but aften applauded or a source of comedy. Well, if I were a leftiest, that would be my approach. Fix the problem by tilting the odds the other way for awhile. But no, as a practical conservative I only bring up these examples to illustrate that perhaps women don't have it as bad as everyone would have us believe.

I don't know why anyone tries to compare Vietnam and the war in the mid-east. The major - and I mean MAJOR - difference in my opinion is this: With Korea and Vietnam, we hated communists. We all knew they were evil. Sure, there were the college kids and some disenfranchised who liked to explore and posture their "belief" in communist ideals - but it was a small minorty of kneejerk anti-american types much like those formerly communist westerners who have turned to Islam today. The difference - scary difference - today is that nations don't go to war anymore. Soldiers get sent to war and the rest of the nation sits at home and undermines their efforts by belittling and debating the mission. The biggest chuck of our population: the babyboomers, were college kids "fighting the power" protesting the 'nam war. So now every war to them is vietnam and has no point. Unlike other generations, babyboomers grew up under the premise that wars can't be won and shouldn't be fought. This is fundementally different, which is why I continually ask people on this site "do you believe some things are worth fighting for?" And the biggest difference today is that back then, the communists couldn't demand special rights in the name of diversity. The almighty altar of diversity is being exploited by those who don't have the same values as we do. And so as the enemy continually shouts us down, asks us to adapt to THEM, we shepishly do so, and continually, blindlessly celebrate our boundless tolerance.

First of all, the concept of being a stupid buffoon carries with it a negative connotation - I don't think being a mother or a nurturer does. Second, I believe that in tool time, the wife Jill is studying for her PHD in psychology and in King of Queens the wife, Carrie, works in a law office - so they certainly aren't just sitting at home cooking and cleaning as it were. You also haven't addressed the acceptance of violence or aggression against men. Just after I wrote that comment, last night I was watching a movie and sure enough right on cue, a woman in the same scene slapped the man in the face then dumped beer all over a man. This kind of thing is commonplace in our society and accepted - just one more exampleof the "war against boys". Your exclamation that men should "get a lobby just like women did" doesn't really address the argument at hand here. We're talking about the existence of a problem. Sure there are solutions, but we're discussing the existence of the problem first and foremost. The key point of discussion though (from my standpoint) is that the myth of the hard-done-by, oppressed woman should be extinguished - it doesn't exist anymore and is in complete contradiction with reality.

Holy shit - equating increasingly unruly and swelling muslim populatins with soccer hooligans. It's always an entertaining treat to get insight into your twisted outlook on the world doggy More, please. MORE!!! baaaaaahahahahahahaa

Thanks Moxie - and BTW it's JERRY Someone ealier in the thread mentioned TV commercials and their portrayal of men. What about sitcoms? While a bit off topic from the original thread... Shall we list... The Simpsons Everybody Loves Raymond Tooltime King of Queens and on and on the list goes...what do these all have in common? They lean on the major comedic crutch: man is buffoon who does stupid (funny) things and in the end must be trained / corrected by civilized wife ...man learns his lesson end of show. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Think about how common it is for women to exhibit violence against men on television shows and movies. The classic woman through plates at a man, woman dumpin drinks on a man, woman slapping / punching a man is not only commonly accepted but appreciated, laughed at and applauded by audiences. Think about conversations in social settings. When I'm at a cocktail party (with people who might not be the closest of friends - ie. aqcuaintences) I wouldn't dare make a comment like "well that's just because she's stupid woman". Yet jokes, comments and even long drawn out conversations about the downfalls of "white men" or "dumb males" are not uncommon. It makes me wonder whether we really have reached the pinnacle of equality in society, or maybe we've just found a new target for the "direction of popular discontent" among the masses. This really isn't the main topic though - the main topic is the actual institutionalization of this kind of thinking in our schools and elsewhere. That is the scariest part of all of this.

I think in order to be against the death penalty, you have to have some degree of respect for the life of a convicted capital murderer. It's not that I'm pro-death penalty so much as I really don't give a shit what happens to a guy who kills his wife and his unborn son (for example). Does this make sense to anyone else out there?

Indeed the "examine the root causes of 9-11" crowd would probably also blame a woman's clothing for her rape....kind of ironic given the muslim world's record on rape.

Fair enough. It's something worth considering, and a good reminder of how quickly (and shamelessly) you can gain advantage by claiming "victim" status.

The point is: some things are worth fighting for.

Has anyone noticed what I consider to be a disturbing trend in our society? The almighty altar of "equality" or "diversity" can have some pretty bad effects when the social engineer goes beyong fairness and delves into the obsessive. Take for example the fairly commonly held misperception that females face more obstacles than to males in society. OK so long ago women couldn't vote and in lots of Muslim countries their tesimony in court is considered to be worth 1/3 of a male's, which means if a muslim man rapes a woman, she must find 2 other women witnesses to compete with his testimony...but generally in western societies, perhaps we should investigate just how hard done by the female of the species is these days, and how dangerous it is to socially engineer "equality". Has anyone noticed in the Canadian's Mint's advertising for olympic coins, all the athletes are female? I watch TV commercials and consistently see girls getting goalie equipment for xmas, girls playing hockey, women performing surgery, women making arrests and fighting fires...where have all the boys gone? Is society so girlfriendly that the boys are being left behind? Christina Hoff Sommers thinks so and posits her argument in her excellent book "The War Against Boys". Here is a link to a summary. Here is an excerpt to spur your interest... Let the debate begin....