JerrySeinfeld

Well as an example: Here is Higgly in response to a woman getting beaten in Iran: "How about this? Gee, why doesn't everybody everywhere act the way we do, believe in the things we do, and just adopt our system of beliefs and prejudices and go watch Hollywood movies all the time just like we do? O Fudge!" Or remiel: "And, like, we never hear about police beating protesters for being uncooperative, in North Amerca, eh?" And scriblett: "You know, think about it - it's not even been 100 years since women got the vote here in the so-called morally superior 'west'. Perhaps if the 'west' didn't mess with other's nations through various nefarious means women today in Iran would enjoy far more 'civilised' rights. I would bet, if we were to play the "what-if" game, that had we left Mossadeq to pursue his secular ideals Iran would be a very different country today. But so much for unintended consequences eh?" Excuses and sidestepping the issue at hand.

Too smart. US politics isn't like that. The Republicans will elect someone to focus on their religious right base and the Dems will elect someone to focus on their loony-left Rosie O'Donnell base. Niether claims the middle because they just don't get it. Reagan got it. Clinton got it. Let's face it - America is always at it's best when it's "money first". Look at those two great decades: the 80's with reagan and the '90's with clinton.

I see, thanks for the clarification. That is part of it and the gist of this case. But what I think Steyn is saying is that this case is a microcosm of Canada's larger problem: that we're so obsessed with "tolerance" or "accomodation" that the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. And we're even proud of it. I also think he's suggesting that Canada does have a history and values and an identity, and that we too easily give it up for people who come over here and demand that we change that identity or values to accomodate them, when in reality THEY are the ones who are the immigrants, perhaps it is they who should be looking at integrating if they wish to be here. When you join an organization, be it a church, a political group, a charity cause, a service club...presumably it is because there are some things attractive and common values of which you intend to be a part. It wouldn't make much sense for somebody to join the local Rotary club or elk's club then refuse to take the oath and demnd that it be changed. The same should go for a country, even moreso! Steyn questions whether we as Canadians actually stand for anything. He also questions whether countries should be assimilating to immigrants or viseversa. It's a valid debate. There is no right or wrong, but think about it. This is just one micocosm. Think of the muslim UK police officer who said he would not protect jews. Should we accomodate this? Is this type of "tolerance" tolerable in the name of the almighty "diversity"? Is natinoalism only OK if it's not western?

It's women like these that give the rest of us (serious, levelheaded businesswomen) a bad name and make me sick. Ladies, no matter how young you look, once you are over 35 you should NOT be wearing itty bitty miniskirts. And I look damn good in 'em but I'd rather die than wear one to work at my age. Can you imagine walking into a client's dressed like that? LOL I'd get in the door for sure -- but it's unlikely any clients would trust me to manage their marketing for the long term. My advise for women at this time would be whatever makes it easier with out compromising your morals such as: sleeping your way to the top - NEVER DO THIS If you look good, and a short skirt makes it edgy, go for it...also make sure you have contingencies in place, some competencies, and lots of education, in fact twice as much as the darn men.... even then you probably won't make the same amounts of quids but at least you can have some fun Eductation is great in Medicine, Engg. or Law. But for most business it's only a start. That's the one thing alot of women don't get: it's not the size of your degree - it's how you use it

The Republican party's Christian base had already vowed not to support him. He may not recover from this little misfortune. Too funny. Something reagan realized: Ignore the religious right and go after the "reagan democrats". If the RR doesn't support Giuliani, who cares? What R they gonna do - vote for Hillary? In terms of winning the nomination, though, I can see a the problem.

Has anybody heard about this Charles Roach fellow who refuses to take the oath of citizenship because he and his fellow blacks were "colonized as a people by the British throne, enslaved as a people by the British throne..."? This article by Mark Steyn discussed it in more detail. You have to register before you can read it. Use your "junk only" email address (don't we all have those?) to register if you don't want their spam. It's worth the 45 seconds to read it. The oddest thing is that Mr. Roach is from Trinidad which makes him already a British subject. The gist of what Steyn argues (and I am inclined to agree) is that 1. Roach doesn't HAVE to become a citizen of Canada 2. Aren't imigrants suppose to come here and assimilate to Canada - not Canada assimilate to immigrants? 3. What is Canada? Just a hotel where people can just show up and start demanding we change our values to suit them? This to me is a bizarre case. To quote Steyn: "Canada is nothing other than whoever happens to be standing around in it at any particular time. M. Chrétien used to dignify this as "da Canadian values," but in practice "da Canadian values" boils down to forswearing the very notion of Canadian values. As Hedy Fry was wont to say from time to time, what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here? In seeking a constitutional right to reject Canadian sovereignty, Mr. Roach is in an oddly profound way the apotheosis of a Canadian value system that values the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority. I think the judge should have told Mr. Roach to take a hike. Immigration is discretionary. That's to say, no state is obliged to take in this or that alien and then confer citizenship upon him. And for an immigrant to say he's prepared to accept citizenship only if in doing so he can reject the constitutional order is, even by the standards of our postmodern multiculti identity, almost too exquisite a parody. Which is probably why Mr. Roach is a shoo-in. " Thoughts?

Sorry - but the Leafs are so far from winning The Cup I don't even think the distance is measurable.

Wow. Has anyone ever seen such an easy run to the cup? At times during earlier series, Anaheim looked almost disinterested. They absolutely pummelled and embarassed Ottawa. And Alfredsson is a ninny - I mean, who takes a slap shot at Scott Neidermeyer at centre ice with 2 seconds left in the period. Yet another year where euro-ninny captains can't get it done. Congrats to Anaheim. I don't want to say possible dynasty - but they have Pronger for 4 more years and a very young team....And they sure looked dominant.

That's a vivid description. I asked an Islamic friend (woman) what happens if a woman dresses too provocatively - say in a dress or skirt. She said one word: "raped". I can't wait to hear the left's weak attempt at comparisons to the evil west. Lefties love to hate us, don't they?

Well put. And 100% bang-on correct. Anyone who has seen what drugs do to people's lives wouldn't suggest that: 1. It is normal human behavior and 2. It is worth legalizing Have you seen even one episode of "Intervention"?

Like jeanne kirkpatrick? Like Amanda Lang!!

Love it - notice the constant change in climate throughout history and long before CO2. Notice the changes take 1000's of years..... Yes they do.

Well, see, that's just the reason I had to ask. This report restates the false reports of two years ago saying that he said Israel should be wiped off the map. Thing is, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. (He said it 'should vanish from the pages of history' or something like that.) And then, when it actually quotes his latest statement, in fact, HE DOES NOT appear to say that the destruction of Isreal is coming, he says the regime. [so, Scribby, you were wrong on that, too.] The Israel apologists are continually lying about what Ahmedjihad says. Yes - and we all know from the lessons in Iraq that regime change doesn't necessarily mean the destruction of a country and ...er.....wait a minute here

You're assuming that my questioning of your motive in singling out one country means I condone Iranian actions. It doesn't, far from it. I've probably physically done more to voice my concern of human rights for MIDDLE-EASTERN women (not just Iran), than you - unless of course you think cherry-picking unfriendly nations to compalin about on the internet is doing something about women's rights. It's not, you are doing nothing constructive. Singling one country in order to malign the people of that nation does nothing other than incite hatred toward them. Oh - so let's all get it straight. To bring attention to an injustice against women in the US is ACTIVISM. To bring attention to an injustice against women in IRAN is RACISM. Got it.

Love it - notice the constant change in climate throughout history and long before CO2.

The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 and its origins date at least from the Montreal Protocol of 1987 for eliminating CFCs.Environmental protection is an issue of long date and it will continue into the future. It may well be the defining issue of this century. Maybe. It certainly does have all the characteristics of a favorite politician topic: vague, huge, difficult to measure success. a la: health care And we can all save the world without doing anything. Change from paper to plastic (or is it plastic to paper these days?), buy that new hummer and 450 tons of CO2 emissions for 20 bucks with the earnest knowledge that somewhere in banladesh they'll be planting a forest in our name, and walk around like the jesus that just saved the earth. Why wouldn't it be a "defining issue"? LOL Not only that, but it can keep reinventing itself. The first ever earth day was meant to draw attention to the impending ice age and the "population bomb". And hey - how about that shrinking ozone layer? The end of the world is never quite nigh enough for the econazis. hahahaha... Anyway - I am still predicting people will get bored and the econazis will have to come up with yet another crisis to keep our attention. Our here on the west coast I saw on the news last night some marine biologists were chopping up a beached whale doing a "necrotopsy" on the mammal to find out why it died. When interviewed you could almost see the HOPE in the eyes of the marine biologists that the cause of death would reveal the need for more attention, and yes, money to save the new WHALE CRSIS on the west coast. Stay tuned....

I've known quite a few drop dead gorgeous female journalists...Jennifer Wells, Anne Shortell, Anne Kinston to name three..... They are all print journalists though, and can't capitalize on their girl next door looks (now mom next door looks)...... Amanda Lang on BNN is hot. And super intelligent too - many times she really talks circles around some of the "expert" guests on her show. Love the right wing babes: Smart AND hot. Meantime the left wingers are still learning how to shave the old armpits before the big riot down at the WTO meeting.

Are you twelve? Take a look back through this thread please and point out to me where I defended Bill O'reilly. Then pick up the pieces from your straw man. When you're done with that, get back to me on an argument I actually made instead of one you dreamt up for me. Oh, I'm quite familiar with straw-man arguments. You've been doing using them on me throughout the whole thread on the other board. Really? Here is my example of yours: Now - where is your example of mine?

Who really cares. It's politics. Look at the war. People are just plain bored. We live in an attention deficit world. Climate Change will eventually jump the shark, people will get sick of it and we'll all be talking about something else in 2 years. That's my prediction. Good thing this thing is date-stamped so I can come back and say "I told you so" in a couple or three years.

Are you twelve? Take a look back through this thread please and point out to me where I defended Bill O'reilly. Then pick up the pieces from your straw man. When you're done with that, get back to me on an argument I actually made instead of one you dreamt up for me.

Are you sure you're name isn't Rosie?

AGAIN, you have refused to answer why you are singling out one nation amongst the hundreds who practise gross mistreatment of women, preferring instead to pretend like I'm condoning these actions in my questioning of your motive. Let me ask you point blank - why are you singling out Iran on this when so many other countries have similar and even worse practises regarding women? I didn't start this patricular thread about Iran - I'm a participant who happens to disagree with the actions described on the opening link. If you want to talk about things like this in other countries you can start your own thread. I'm not sure your aware of the current political climate in Iran, but these images and news about the opression of women in Iran is actually quite topical and timely due to the recent clamp down on women's rights under a new, much more fundamentalist government. In another context (since you insist on bastardizing this thread about women's rights), if someone in the free world pointed to this kind of sexism and oppression as just one more reason why the existing fundamentalist government is dangerous, would they be incorrect? The answer is clearly no. As a concerned woman, you should take a quick breeze through this

Maybe she can get a job at Fox debating O'Reilley. She's probably the only one who may have a chance being heard since he's such a "shout-at-the-top-of-my-lungs type of debator who's most effective debate tactic is to shout louder than everyone else, which may have worked for him in grade 3 but since then you'd think he'd grow up." Or do you not mind that style when it's a heterosexual male with whom you agree? gee BC Chick - another thread, another redirection of the debate toward the evil conservatives YOU don't like. Start another thread - this one's called "Rosie".

Rex could have used this in his article. Makes me think of Y2K. Brilliant analogy.

First of all I can't stand the View. But it's like a train wreck - sometimes I can't look away. What exactly is the value in watching four blowhard hens pecking about this topic or that. It's the ultimate housewife show - then all the real lif housewives can get together after the show over tea and crumpets to talk about all the same topics ad nauseum. But then again - I suppose that's what we're doing here Second, Rosie is an obnoctious fat lesbian. That is not a derogutory term. It's is just plain fact. In fact - I think I heard her refer to herslef that way once. She needs to be off air - forever. Not just because of her politics, but because she is a blowhard domineering shout-at-the-top-of-my-lungs type of debator who's most effective debate tactic is to shout louder than everyone else, which may have worked for her in grade 3 but since then you'd think she'd grow up. If she was a hot, thin big-breasted blonde lesbian with terribly on-thought-out left wing politics and a pleasant demeanor, well...that would be another story entirely. It's not her politics that make me sick. It's her utterly unattractive personality wrapped up in an utterly unattractive outer shell. Good riddance (ugh).