JerrySeinfeld

Poor America? Thank God for America and God bless America. America is more like the parent. The ingrate teenage whiny childeren are the Euro states who are just nice enough to Daddy to get protection in the form of Nato and the most expensive military on the face of the earth while they spend and spend on lavish social programs, then turn aruond and criticize the US for having lesser social programs and a big military - even though it was America's military spending which cost them social programs and ALLOWED the euros to overspend on theirs.

Well it doesn't help when the women in the Liberal party form a womens coalition for womens issues which is lead by Belinda Stronach. I know that is her clever way of getting herself in power as i'm sure she's going to continue to get herself in power over the years. Politics is not an old boys club. There's just more boys. If there were more girls, it would be a girls club. Precisely. As a small example: Without even looking I'd wager that once you're elected your chances of becoming a cabinet minister if you are a woman MP is far higher than that of a male MP. I'd say life for women in politics is pretty damn good!

The main difference is that there is a plan with the Clean Air Act. With Kyoto, the only plan was to get Rick Mercer to ask us politely to reduce our emissions. Yeah, and the plan takes effect once most of us are retired or dead....... The Liberals wouldn't have even created a plan until we are retired or dead so I don't see the difference. There is no environmental party in Canada with any relevance. Agreed - but why should there be? There isn't reallty any environmental crisis of any significance going on right now. From what I have seen, there are more trees, cleaner waterways, cleaner air, more protected areas now than 20 or 30 years ago. GW Bush's Republicans reduced emissions much more effectively than all the eurosocialist socially concious commie-states combined since Kyoto took effect. So who needs an environment party? Things seem pretty darned good!

It's an example. Another such example would be stuff like: Which has also been used to justify why women shouldn't be alowed to vote, run for office, own property, etc etc. Umm - big time straw man. I never once used the argument to justify anything. I'm simply explaining the FACT that less women participate in politics despite having every encouragement and opportunity to do so, and despite the LACK of any barriers to them doing so. Why? Because as other women on here have posted, there may be priorities that matter to a greater percentage of women than entering politics. Men and women are different. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a tough time accepting that FACT. Meantime I applaud all women who enter politics and am sick of people exaggerating and even inventing barriers the "poor little women" have to face.

I dunno, what barriers there are, but then, I'm not a woman who's tried to enter politics. Sheila Copps, however, is. Of course someone who doesn't believe sexism exists or who resorts to unproveable "just-so" stories to justify gender inequalites is unlikely to be swayed by the voice of experience. So your evidence of barriers to women in politics is a mean letter to Shiela Copps - as if she's the only politician to get angry mail? That's sooo weak. Let's see some evidence that MEANS something - other than "hey you hurt my feelings".

Hmmm - these all sound like reasons we ousted Saddam.

Hmmm, it's rather interesting that you have attributed this to the "left", when the term "climate change" was practically invented by Frank Luntz, the republican strategist....hardly a "leftie" No it wasn't - it was invented by a bunch of granola scientists who used to write about the coming "global cooling" in the 1970's. Then when the world started warming in the 70's 80's and 90's they changed it to "global warming". But now that the world has started to cool again (granola scientists HATE good news), they just figure it's easier to refer to "climate change"

Same reason fewer women go to prison: Because men and women are different. We're not the same. We're not equal. We have equal RIGHTS but that doesn't make us WANT to do the same things. Women can run anytime they want. The nominatino process is actually quite simple. Sign up, buy a membership, rally your supporters, show up at the nomination meeting and have a vote. That's exactly what Rona Ambrose did and how she became a candidate, an MP and ultimately a minister. Now I ask you again for the umpteenth time: What is stopping other women from doing the same thing?

What is really wrong with physical beauty anyway? We need more of it.

These Belinda references make me wanna puke. How in heaven's name did BS get to be the standard-bearer for Canadian women politicians? Because she plays the gender card every time her character is (rightfully) questioned? This just shows how gullible you and the rest of the Canadian electorate are. Why can't we look at true ethical, educated and intelligent women politicians like Rona Ambrose? he uis a far classier, smarter, more educated and respectable figure than Stronach. Stronach has no loyalty, is an opportunist who shed her boyfriend and party at the first opportunity to grab power (which backfired - by the way) and has now lately been named as the "other woman" in a divorce filing. Not exactly what I would call classy A-1 role-model material. For men OR women politicians. Give me a BREAK. If Stephen Harper had done ANY of the above the Libs would be all over it - and he wouldn't be able to cry to the media and claim sexism as a defense for poor judgement. But enough about her. The point is: Women can and do enter politics ALL THE TIME. My quesiton is: why is it important to ENCOURAGE women to enter politics? Are we saying they can't do it on their own? And more importantly: WHAT BARRIERS exist today? So far all I have heard on this is that your "feelings might get hurt" if you enter politics. What a joke. That barrier exists for men and women equally. Come up with something concrete or quit whining about the "poor little women".

Are you afraid of any of them? I hear what you are saying and I see that too. The difference is that I also see the children of immigrants and I do not believe they continue the bigotry. Bigotry will be solved by attrition within a generation or two. The old bigots will die off. This is complete bullshit. I can't even believe some of the blatant unabashed racist comments I hear Canadian born childeren of immigrants spewing.

I suppose your argument here is that women are too stupid to enter politics? They don't commit enough crimes to be in jail more often and they don't have the brains to be in politics more often? No, not at all. It's that men and women are different. Maybe women are too SMART to enter politics. Whatever the reason the rationale is this: Just as women and men have different representations in jail for any variety of unknown or partially explained reasons, so too will their representations be different in all kinds of realms of society, and to "work to rectify these unequal representations" is not only futile...it's also plain disrespectful to women. Women know they can enter politics and succeed. What's insulting is a paternalistic social engineering frenchman who rides into town claiming to be the hero for all the poor little women's problems in the world. Women and men have different representations in jail for obvious reasons - women commit fewer crimes. It is far less clear why there are 5 times as many men in parliament as women. Maybe you can suggest some that can account for those differences? Because fewer women get elected.

Yea. or "god invented beer so chicks that look like this will look like THIS after a few pints." The ad could actually be a good promotion for makeup: "See this doggy looking chick? look what makeup did - now she too can get laid. Hooray for makeup!!"

I suppose your argument here is that women are too stupid to enter politics? They don't commit enough crimes to be in jail more often and they don't have the brains to be in politics more often? No, not at all. It's that men and women are different. Maybe women are too SMART to enter politics. Whatever the reason the rationale is this: Just as women and men have different representations in jail for any variety of unknown or partially explained reasons, so too will their representations be different in all kinds of realms of society, and to "work to rectify these unequal representations" is not only futile...it's also plain disrespectful to women. Women know they can enter politics and succeed. What's insulting is a paternalistic social engineering frenchman who rides into town claiming to be the hero for all the poor little women's problems in the world.

Oddly, Calgary and Toronto are polar opposites as far as ideology.

Yes, I was thoroughly disappointed when I read about this. Social engineering at it's best. But, it's clearly being said to contrast the current government's cutting of funding to women's groups and the Dept. of the Status of Women. In other words, in typical Liberal style, it's all about looking good and nothing about actual substance, i.e. it seems all soft and lovey towards women, not like those misogynist Conservatives, but is blatantly sexist and discriminatory. If this were the USA, I'd probably say "they'd better be careful: by claiming all the "feel good" issues as their territory, they risk drifting way off to the left and alienating most middle class voters." But here in Canada, I'm not sure there is such a thing as "too far left". - especially in vote-rich commie Toronto. But the Libs always have been good at one thing the cons never seem to grasp: Campaign from the left, govern from the right. Harper's been trying, but the libs are far more stealth at it.

Of course not! Now that EVERYTHING (even cooling) is evidence of "climate change" there's no arguing against it, right? Nowadays as long as it's too warm, too cold, too dry, too wet, too rainy, too humid...too anything, then GOSH RUN FOR THE HILLS - it's CLIMATE CHANGE. Er, wait. That would render the science of climate change irrefutable, which would mean it's not science... bwaahahahahahhaa Climates do change. You're right on that. But they've been doing it for thousands and thousands of years, long before you and David Suzuki started milking the public on the subject. p.s. - I don't need to read the newspaper to know that it's been cold and snowy

So Dion is slapping on his social engineeering hat to bump up the number of women in politics. That's kind of a joke. There isn't anything stopping women from entering politics today other than their own personal decisions based on unique circumstances. Just like there are more men in prison than there are women. So according to the logic of "equal representation in all groups of society" we should be working really hard to make sure more women end up in prison? Unless we're making that inevitible jump to Sharia (Islamic Law) overnight, I think not. Why not? Because women aren't equally represented in prison for alot of reasons. But it's not because of some kind of conspiracy against men. It's because women behave differently than men do. Maybe crime isn't the only area of difference? Gee - what a novel concept.

Of course not! Now that EVERYTHING (even cooling) is evidence of "climate change" there's no arguing against it, right? Nowadays as long as it's too warm, too cold, too dry, too wet, too rainy, too humid...too anything, then GOSH RUN FOR THE HILLS - it's CLIMATE CHANGE. Er, wait. That would render the science of climate change irrefutable, which would mean it's not science... bwaahahahahahhaa Climates do change. You're right on that. But they've been doing it for thousands and thousands of years, long before you and David Suzuki started milking the public on the subject.

Well it's been bloody cold here in Vancouver - it snowed like crazy and Alberta has only recentlly excaped a weeks long deep freeze. Is it just me, or has the global warming spared western Canada?

I think it's relevant for politics from it's angle on "political correctness". I mean, c'mon. I think the question you have to ask is: who exactly, of any significance, did Klassen beat? If yuo can't name anyone without using google, then there is your answer. On the other hand, Nash beat out the likes of Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Tim Duncan. These are all world class athletes in a sport played world wide. Nash, as a Canadian, from Victoria, comes into that heavy HEAVY competition and wins not one, but TWO MVP awards in this sport. I think Cindy Klassen as athlete of the year for Canada is a typical Toronto Star stunt. People need to get over this obsession with making women equal in every way and start recognizing a little bit of reality in the world.

I also feel the same way. You go everywhere and you find the usual McDonald's, and you know a KFC and a Burger King or Dairy Queen can't be that far away. When societies are supposedly "diversified"...how come we are inundated with "cookie-cutters" kind of lifestyle? Everything is a formula. From the kind of big-budget movies being shown...to the eat-all-you-can-buffets....to practically all the menus in town. Yes, items on most menu in family restaurants/bars seem identical! And a lot practically taste or look the same....depending on which major suppliers deliver the goods. Then look at the rows of houses. They all look the same with the garage being way upfront, as the focal point....I mean....feels like you've never really left at all. That's just simply not true. There are lots of options out there for housing, stores, restaurants, bars. Just because lots of people frequent the more popular spots (they would be so ubiquitous if they weren't popular, right?) doesn't mean there aren't other options. Hey, where is the rule that says you have to listen to hip hop or Britney Spears? You can just as easily flip the dial to CKUA or NPR and hear some jazz or a nice symphony, right? If you don't like big boz stores, maybe you shouldn't have had the 2.5 kids and moved to the boonies in the first place

For fans of sport and political pundits, this should be an interesting result...

I'm sure man-made emissions weren't the cause there my friend. And how can you be so sure? Do you have first hand information? The result can be the same though, at least according to some scientists (I read it, I believe, on the BBC Science & Nature site). Can we afford at this point in time to take bets with the side that suits our preferences and keep fingers crossed for the better? More to the point: Are we not taking a huge gamble with our economy by trying to rectify a "problem" which may not even exist?

Yea - I know the idea of listening to something other than the elitist drivel spouted by a "royal commission" or a "special envoy" is unfathomable to most lefties. More to the point, you could stick your head in the sand (as you obviously have) and pretend that the ongoing news stories involving self-detonating, beheading, sniper, beslan school shooting Muslims have absolutely nothing in common No. It's that - in the words of a Muslim mother of martyrs - "they blow up so fast" Riiiiight....go with the company line DOGGY So when the Toronto bombers were arrested and the Police chief proudly announced that the arrests were from a "broad strata of society" and the Mayor of Toronto blamed the plot on bad social programs...THAT wasn't being superficial - but the global jihad WAS? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA