JerrySeinfeld

You can say that again... Gosh doggy - when u run out of arguments you resort to bathroom humor? I should've expected as much. I bet you hang out at the sugar bowl in Edmonton and cross your legs like a girl while you regurgitate lefty drivel over a glass of zuchini juice

Your rant isn't credible. George Soros and William Buffett are both of the 'liberal' persuasion, just to name two. They are both self-made multi-billionaires. The left is far larger than the 'dirty hippies protesting the war' that you see so enamoured of. Yes - there is what I call the "gandma commie" syndrome. It's very prevalent in Victoria. People with lots of money and long in the tooth start getting altruistic a la Maslow. But it's a pretty strong theory in the younger college age - 35 segment of the left.

What a superb post. You said it perfectly. And this isn't a theory - it's fact in at least one case. I have a relative who is every bit the snivelling coffee house grump that Black Dog is - and he used to love the commies back in the day. Was I surprised that he has converted to Islam in the wake of it's new found status as the antithesis of America? Not at all.

Sounds just like the right wing. Most people never really create any enterprise. maybe - but at least the right wing doesn't consider it the enemy

hey - it's just my impression of Lefties. If anyone wants to contribute they can, otherwise the thread will die a natural death.

Whats gotten into you DOGGY? Yuo're actually being kinda civil today. Keep it up But AGAIN with this old mantra "not all muslims are terrorists" keep saying it over and over till you're in that lovely mindless lefty trance. It's true, not all Muslims ARE terrorists. No shit. But a couple of brave and outspoken muslim women have pointed out repeatedly (mostly to deaf ears) that there IS in fact a problem in Islam with respect to acquiescing to the more..ahem..."active" sects of Islam. So perhaps with people like this there is hope - but then again there are daily threats against her life. Maybe she can write a song about it and win a Grammy a la "Dixie Chicks". Doubt it - rewarding someone who speaks out against Islam isn't on Hollywood's priority list. Remember when all Movie terrorists were Arabic? Then, after 9-11, none of em are - how hilarious is THAT? And what does that say about our PC world? Simple: it says we willing ignore facts and problems in the name of political correctness...at our own peril. Shit I'm on a roll....

Think about this: The left wing is comprised largely of people who never really created any enterpise (and most call enterprises BAD things ), expect things to be handed to them and and don't believe in fighting for something. But because they typically walk up and down the streets demonstrating against war, shouting about equalization for the poor, saving the world and other lofty vague goals and just generally thinking pretty damn good about themselves for being such nice, moral people. The problem is this: I BELIEVE ALOT OF LEFTIES ADOPT THESE EMPTY PLATITUDES BECAUSE WITHOUT HAVING TO CREATE, WORK OR BUILD ANYTHING, THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY "BETTER PEOPLE" THAN THE FILTHY MONEY GRUBBING RIGHT WING. The left platform is basically a bunch of loser who can elevate themselves to greatness JUST BY ADOPTING AN IDEOLOGY. What a thought. God help us if any of their un-thought out, pet ideas du jour to save the world ever actually get adopted. With this climate change bullshit, we're on the verge of being hijacked by these morons. And Suzuki is at the front of the line. Absolutely no concept of economics. Just a do-gooder blow hard.

This is the same organization that is try to scare the shit out of people because summer nights are 1C warmer - and paid off 2500 scientists to do it. There was a big UN confenece here in Vancouver last summer and HOLY SHIT. These pathetic bureaucrats live in a wonderbubble. I actually never thought bureaucrats of this stupid magnitude actually existed, but they do.

Think about the most recent UK terror arrests. I can't remember who it was so you'll have to take my word for it, but in the wake of the arrests a Muslim brit MP stood up and suggested the root cause of such attacks are brit foreign policy which must be changed if any futuire attacks from muslims are to be averted. It was basically a veiled threat. Now obviously it HASNT been successful in changing foreign policy as yet, but given the demographic projections these kinds of statements will only become more common and acceptable. And think about it. With their vile and violent solution to things, and the mega attention they're getting woldwide, Muslims don't even need to reach majority. They're like gays: so loud and annoying on the PR stage that there are only a few around that you'd think there are alot more of 'em then there actually are. oh now you're just being silly. but you accidentally made a good point: those who have a set of values and are prepared to defend and even DIE for those values will win the handshake...and as Steyn says, right now that's now the west (ex-America).

Really! Then why is called global warming. Is that just to scare people. It was global cooling in the '70's, and global warming in the '90's. BUt we're enlighted: No - it's called climate change now. That way the econazis don't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years. (Mark steyn gets credit for that one - but it's just so priceless I use it all the time and it always leaves the watermelons with a dumb stare on their face). God bless Steyn. Nobody does a more brilliant job of pointing out the ridiculousness of the "serious" left with biting satire. And he pisses the shit out of snivelling coffe house whiner like doggy which must mean he's diong something right.

Side note: neither is human behavior re: changing climate (which all the disaster theorists seem to predicate their pedictions on - like we're all just gonna stand around and watch the ocean swallow up our childeren)...but i digress. I think another premise in the book revolves around the idea that the world/un/europe etc. is taking an odd turn toward acquiescing and tolerating shit like ahmedinejad, hugo chavez, china's shenanigans, russia...and that America is the only one left with it's head screwed on stright. And alot of that has to do with the changing demographics of those countries in europe: ie. Leaders in europe face the wrath of the tempermental muslim if they support the US in it's war against assholes. From what I can gather from Mark writing, he points out that while the rest of the world thinks Ameica isn't keeping up with the joneses, he suggests that the joneses are the fucked up ones, and the America and a very small group of allies stand up tall to fight against whats wrong in this world.

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it? see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are. Andrew You shoudl remember that next time the golbal warming people rage on about Katrina etc. Who are the 'global warming' people? Andrew That's part of my point as well - that the climate change debate has been bastardized into something completely unscientific and instead political. That's why I mention the possibility that "climate change' is a trojan horse for socialism. What has socialism ALWAYS advocated? taxing corporations to transfer wealth. Suspiciouslty this is exactly what kyoto / suzuki et al put forth as a solution. It's the "watermelon" effect: green on the outside: red on the inside. Look on the front cover of Al Gore's movie. It has a smokestack emitting a ploodf of smoke that turns into hurricane katrina. This does nothing to advance the science or research. It plays on simplistic emotions of VOTERS. The same way that Bush used 9-11 to fanangle dimwitted redneck voters into thinking the whole issue should be a "war against ayrabs" - Now the Gore / Suzuki crowd has tricked a generation of lefties --just starved for the opportunity to "save the earth" and "do something siginficant" without ever having to create anything (a callnig card for left wingers)-- into thinking that just because a living train-wreck city below sea level got flooded, that we should all drive hybrids. Let's get back to the science.

So tell me: why are so so afraid of discussing it? My favorite thing about winding you up, Jer-bear, is that I seldom have to actually do anything to make you look stupid. You volunteer yourself for the gig. Every. Single. Time. huh? winding ME up? take a loko at your posts - you're the one (as always) who gets pissy and personal. you take this shit WAY too seriously.

As you'll see in my topic starter on this - I have not advocated the sonofabitch system, I have merely put it out there for discussion. oh chill doggy you're such an angry dude. you must be poor or not have been loved by your mother.

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it? see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are. Andrew Good post - and this (although it has been misunderstood) is my point. If we are talking about science, we shouldn't be giving so much credence to news reports about the lack of snow in europe as shocking first hand evidence of a major climate shift.

Ah so you are now endorsing a system that you previously rejected( "the idea is to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms"), on the basis that it wasn't the idea so much as its execution that led to its failure. I don't think this flip-flop requires a rebuttal. That point, too, is debatable. I (and many many others) have listed the potential negative consequenses of such an action. Your hand-waving doesn't address or refute any of them. You're trying to compartmentalize a complex issue. WIth the sonofabitch system, what matters isn't the SYSTEM but the actual sonofabitch. If he turns on you - you gotta take him out - which is what we did. And you can list all the "potential negative consequences" you want - it doesn't negate the need to neutralize a nuke jew hating armageddon loving nutjob. Game set match./

If (a) why assume that it will work? To use Iran as an example, I've listed a numbe rof possible consequenses of a military strike against them that you and other apologists haven't bothered responding to, which has me wondering if you've considered the consequenses at all (And I won't even get into the moral considerations of such a strategy). If ( you've already stated that the s.o.b system didn't work, and even went so far as to blame the rise of terrorist ideologies on that system (without using the big words, of course). So which is it? ( No - we just might need a new sonofabitch - a more compliant one. (a) Second, the implications of exerting the infinitely superior military power of the USA upon a nation headed up by a nutjob nuker jew-hater are net positive any way you snivel at it.

That's debatable. And even if one were to accept that premise, you still have done a piss poor job of identifing effective strategies for addressing this "global problem." You're a big man when it comes to making broad rhetorical prescriptions, but you run and hide from any discussion of details, such as the consequenses of some of your pet strategies ie. nuking Iran. But that's a predictable consequense of not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Details? How about pummel them into submission either directly or through a sonofabitch system.

As is your wont, you put entirely too much stock in rhetoric and precious little into actions. As per usual, you're wrong about pretty much everything. The "war on terror" isn't a war between nations. I know you long for simple solutions to complex problems (especially if that simple solution entails dusting a bunch of brown folks) but do you have to trample your own narrative in the process? I'd consider asking you the same question I asked jbg (who are we supposed to conquer, exactly, and how?) but it would be pointless because you can't rise above the level of trite in your replies. Such a snivelling bitter dude you are - and so obsessed with race ("brown folks"). BUT - in case you hadn't heard there are some pretty darn hardline sects of Islam. They originate from the Middle East, a place which likes the idea of oppressing women, stomping on human rights, complete intolerance of other religions and specializes in general savagery. Until we squash these roots of terrorism and radical Islam, it will be a global problem.

ahh - the old "world as a log cabin" scientific study - as coined by the IPCC i presume? As for the nomenclature, unless you've been living under a rock everyone (myself included) is very well aware of how the name "climate change" has been adapted to ensure that any new weather phenomenon can be captured under the new dogma. In the 70's it was global cooling. In the 90's it's global warming. now, instead of confusing the public and coming up woth new excuses to tax industry and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations (ie. global socialism), they call it "climate change" - and EVERYTHING on earth is evidence of it. wow. What a perfect, unfalsifiable (and unscientific) idea!!! But the main point is is the framing of the debate. I saw a news story on the snow in the alps on CBC a few days back - and it was framed as a climate change story. This is not scientific: it's misleading and tugs on emotion rather than science. Climate change nazis know that televising a record 9 meters of snow in whislter isn't giong to convince people that the earth is getting warmer and that we are causing it. it's much more dramatic to show the LACK of snow in the alps. and it's not very scientific.

The same status quo that Jerry has elsewhere cited as the source of terrorism. Of course, "colonizing" these countries would have enormous costs in tyerms of lives and treasure. I doubt most people (particularily the tax-cut fetishists of the right) would be willing to to take that burden on. Of course, it also bears mentioning that Argus put this idea forward ages ago and also put forward the reason why it wouldn't work: I totally agree - that is why I mentioned the international community would "have a fit" and that we need to do it using the sonofabitch system. But you're right: we used to go to war with countries. Now we categorize and divide sects of battle. We go to war with SADDAM or "the government of that country - not the PEOPLE" (lol). The fashion in which the left has splintered war into "our shitty downtrodden soldiers (who we SUPPORT - sic) versus a few select people over there" instead of our nation versus their nation has created a situation where we can never justify "war". Perfect platitude for the left - unfortunately it's incorrect. We need to conquer those nations.

Okay, I think I'll file this under "T" for "Totally Fucking Disingeneous." Look, you're the one who brought up the indiscriminate, wholesale and (this is important) intentional targetting of civilian population centres in World War 2 (and not, as I've shown, for the first time). What's more, you speak of these events in more or less favourable terms; in your view, these steps were necessary to break the enemy and win the war. The inescapable conclusion from that and other comments is that a similar "gloves off" approach is neccesary to win the war on Islamic terrorism. Now, there is absolutely no parrallel between Dresden and Hiroshima and whacking a few mullahs, Tony Soprano style. So what are you really advocating here? If you don't support intentionally targetting civilians to break their will, why cite the examples you did? If you do, well, man up and say so. And maybe tell me what cities you want to dust first. Is it that you're too chickenshit to actually follow the logic train to its next stop at Slaughterville (plausible deniability and all that: "Look, I never said we should firebomb or nuke civilian population centres in the Islamic world...but we've had success firebombing and nuking people before...hey, look over there!")? Or maybe you're just riffin' and not really thinking this through? If that's the case, I'm not sure what purpose idle speculation about the utility of applying lessons World War 2 to the war on terror is supposed to serve. Certainly a self-professed "liberal" like yourself would never advocate all-out war which would, by definition, entail killing a whole lot of innocent people, right? So maybe the Dresden thing was just a slip of the tounge, right? Oh. Shit. See? This all goes back to a topic I started about the merits of the sonofabitch system. I'm not necessarily advocating this, but simply putting forth the idea that perhaps Saddam was just no longer our sonofabitch. Maybe we need more of our own sonofabitches to clamp down on the savages of the mid-east. Most colonial countries of savages who were eventually civilized by the brits (or others) of success weren't just handed their own democratic state. Rather they were punished into submission over time and eventually learned about some of the basic tenets of good government such as independent courts, rule of law, confidential voting etc. It bears serious consideratino to seriously "colonialize" these regions. Take them OVER. Problem is the international community would have a fit, so we should consider installing some badass sonofabitches in there and keep 'em on OUR side this time

yes, bubber. those irritatinig people who want to debate facts just won't seem to shut up and let the mob psychology run it's natural course

One simple question: If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

Holy schykees. Doesn't take much to precipitate a liberal hissy fit around these parts. Can you say "staunch religion?" Imagine if they actually WERE lies Even the Gore camp doesn't deny the facts - they merely make claims of "carbon offsets"