JerrySeinfeld

Didn't you say, somewhere around here in the midst of the bizarre spelling and use of capitalization, that the movie is a statement on people who are too tolerant of cultures that are inherently racist? Since it is Kazakhstani culture that is being portrayed to be anti-semitic, aren't you saying this immigrant culture is racist, and therefore all Kazakhstanis hate Jews? No. I'm not saying that at all. The character in the movie could be from bubble-land. It wouldn't matter.

Huh? When did I say all Khazaks hate jews? The Mein Kemph reference was to Turkey.

Yea ok - if you say so Last I checked hurricane season just ended - and not a single hurricane hit the USA. The planet seems pretty darned recognizable to me. It's been a freezing, snowy winter here in BC!!! SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING "Time is running out for the climate" - Chris Rose of Greenpeace, 1997 "Time running out for action on global warming Greenpeace claims" - Irish Times, 1994 "Time is running out" - scientist Henry Kendall, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace, 1992. Gee, time's been running out for the past 15 years, yet all we've see is that since 1998 the earth has actually slightly cooled down!!! hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa Now, my sweet little good-intentioned friends on the left: I know how much you hate good news, but lets deal with some REALITY here....lol

ummm..ya ok. that's why guys named "Mohammed" keep self detonating all over the world and almost every viiolent conflict you can name involves Islam in some form. Not to mention cartoon-jihad, Salmon Rushdie Fatwa, Threats against the Pope, Nuns shot in the back by jihadists, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Madrid Bombings, London Tube bombings, Canadian arrests..... Maybe it's YOU who can't face reality Exactly, which is why I question the kind of glasses lefties are wearing in setting priorities of the hypothetical over the real threat.

? Hispanics and latinos are going republican as they tend to align more on religious issues as well as Bush's stance on illegal immigrants.

Oh that's intelligent - again with the ad-hominem. So in your world, global jihad is a hypothetical and global warming is a certainty?

Maybe you were too busy getting all hot and bothered you didn't REALIZE that you were: So rather than trying to pretend she's saying that people of other cultures can't be racist, which clearly from this quote she is not, why not answer the actual question? The answer is IN the question. Let me explain it for you. Most lefties can't grasp this. Basically I started the post saying the movie mock's people's over-tolerance of other cultures' hatreds or racism. The thought that someone else's culture can be objectively WRONG or despicable is not thinkable to a lefty. The movie BORAT has helped me to illustrate this in spades by evoking reactions from people like Crissy. She came out and bascially said that the movie ACTUALLY mocks anti-semitism (a form of hatred or racism, no?). Sure - on the most basic level that's what it does. But it also does something deeper - because of the fact that the "character" in the movie (BORAT) also happens to be from an ethnic far off country called Khazakstan, which most people know nothing about other than it's floating on oil. So yes, Crissy's simplistic superficial interpretation is sort of correct - it does mock anti-semitism. But at a deeper level it mocks our acceptance of people who are obviously and objectively wrong, yet we accept it because they are from a different culture. The even greater part about the mockery is how timely it is during a time in our world when Hitler's Mein Kemph (sp?) is a best seller in the world's most populous Muslim country. And the even greater part still is how lefties like Crissy are so absorbed with the simplistic notion of a jew mocking anti-semitism that they can't see the deeper layers of irony.

Here is an excerpt from a neat article called "the fertility gap" by arthur c brooks - thoughts? Here is the whole article The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common. On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most "get out the vote" campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven't apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on "cultural issues" like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage. But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today. Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies. The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party. Of course, politics depends on a lot more than underlying ideology. People vote for politicians, not parties. Lots of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather vote on the basis of personalities and specific issues. But all things considered, if the Democrats continue to appeal to liberals and the Republicans to conservatives, getting out the youth vote may be increasingly an exercise in futility for the American left. Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.

In theory. But the "common people" have little sway over a nation's policy even in western democratic nations. What power do you think they have places where the state apparatus is brutally reppresive (as in most Middle Eastern regimes) or incapable of doing a damn thing (as in Iraq)? besides, the only U.S. interventions I despise are pointless wars of choice like the one against Iraq. Well, I hate to go all playground on you, but you started it. You can dish it out, but can't take it. My Canadian Press style book right here tells me those "u" spellings are correct. Need I remind you this is a Canadian forum, and thus Canadian style would be the norm? Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

Can someone tell me why lefties are so hot for "threats" of global warming that hypothetically might happen some day in the distant future. Yet, they seem utterly unconcerned with the current REAL jihad that happens everyday around us? Is everything for a lefty just a hypothetical dreamworld? Will they EVER face reality?

Maybe you were too busy getting all hot and bothered you didn't REALIZE that you were:

This is the great thing about these forums: now we get to see all the lefties rationalize and squirm their way back into some warped argument for "diplomacy".

I know if I was a terrorist intent on blowing up a plane I would try to make myself as conspicuous as possible. Or, so to throw them off, I would do just that! It doesn't say they were "kissing or banging their heads on the floor", it says they were praying. And the suggestion that they would try to make themselves sonspicuous to get kicked off is ridiculous. They had one-way tickets, no luggage and apparently ties to terrorist funding groups and Osama Bin Laden.

Gay people shouldn't be getting married. They should be in the basement with a cueball in their mouth hanging out with The Gimp. They should be wandering the woods waiting for unsuspecting canoe-trippers to drift downriver...

Just curious about mainstream media... Why is it that the MSM report the word "Chechen Rebels" and avoid the term Islamic Militants when describing masscres in Beslan Schoolhouse or Moscow theatre? Why does the MSM report on the "tragedy in Darfur" but fail to report that it's part of a decades-long Islamic jihad in that country? And why are Paris rioters always referred to as "youths" when it's clearly MUSLIMS who are rioting? Why does the MSM report that Islamic Imams were kicked off a plane, but fail to mention that one of the men was connected to both Osama Bin Laden and a "charity", whose assets were frozen as part of the Terrorist-Funding legislation? There is a common thread to much of the world's violence, yet the MSM seems almost EAGER to ignore the obvious Islamic-Militant thread... WHY OH WHY IS THIS THE CASE???

HEAR HEAR!!! And in prison, too. There aren't nearly enough women in prison - VERY underrepresented as a percentage of the overall population in prison We gotta WORK HARD to eliminate these inequalities wherever they may exist. As for "access", plase tell me how women do not have "access" to the political system.

Ah, more slamming of Canada. Even a movie like Borat presents you with another opportunity to mash your heal in the face of our great Country. Love it or leave it Jerry, love it or leave it. No.

Because "finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a recognized concept in international relations. And since Israel has never formally annexed any of the territory it captured in '67, it can't be said to "own" it. the West bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state. You're right on one account: "finders (or rather WINNERS) keepers losers weepers" would make far to much sense to become part of UN dogma. Rather cowtowning to the "we attacked and lost and now we're gonna cry, whine, sulk, self detonate and kill innocent civilians until we get lost in a battle we started by unwisely provoking a superior military" would is the concept you and your UN pals would be more familiar.

Chrissy this Jew says its o.k. don't worry. By the way Chrissy if you want to see what Cohen is getting at you only have to read the posts on this site talking about "conspiracies" it didn't take them too long to evolve into conspiracy theories about Jews that are as idiotic as what Cohen is trying to poke fun of. A lot of people won't get it Chrissy but some days I am so frustrated with some peoples' ignorance towards Jews, I kind of understand why Cohen followed this approach. I think its Andy Kaufman and Lenny Bruce mixed in one myself. It is a form of comedy that is brutal and hard edge. I think it also comes about as a result of the pervasive trend for reality television. A milder version of it can be seen on CBC from Quebec where Quebec comedians set people up with sight gags and then point out the camera to them after they play the joke on them. I am sure you have seen that show or maybe you rememebr Candid Camera. Cohen is just taking these devices and being hard core political with them as you say. No. Crissy, and others in their lack of understanding, has missed a key point about Borat's Anti-Semitism. Earlier in this dialogue Crissy made the (unintentionally) error of discerning between people from other cultures and racists: That's what most people (obviously Crissy) have a poblem with: they have charicature in their heads that racists are white people, and immigrant cultures can never be racist. It's actually happening right now as we speak all aruond us: Muslims that HATE gay people, opress women, espouse the anhilation of the jews...yet we all put up with it because it's "multicultural". Yet the same words or views from a white christian evoke immediate backlash. BORAT does a great job of creating a microsm this simple fact of life: We tolerate horrid, even racist and hateful, behaviors Amidst other cultural groups because we don't want to be seen to offend those cultures.

Why are tall buildings in Muslm societies symbls of female oppression, but not those in western societies (or any other society for that matter)? Hmm? You're arguing there's some intrinsic quality in the buildings in Muslim societies that make them symblos of female oppression. So what is it? All I see is a whopping great logic trainwreck. I know that is all you "see". That's your problem.

Not true. The 1847 partition plan was accepted by most mainstream Zionist groups, including the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-waiting. Only a small minority of Jewish organizations (including the terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang) rejected the UN plan. At any rate, any solution would most definitely involve a return to Israel's approximate pre-1967 borders. Why return to those borders? The Arabs went to war with Israel and lost. When you aim to destroy and enemy and instead as a result, they defeat you, then you're stuck with the new borders. Too bad - live with it

Hey - if I wanted to be surrounded by fanatical Muslim youths I'd skip Iran move to Paris, London or Brussels...all the jihad with better rail service

The Israeli settlement bloc is not a popular one. If pulling out of the settlements is the price of peace, it is one a majority of Israelis would pay. As for the Palestinians, they'd be happy to see the settlements go, but any deal to clear them out and turn the land over to the Palestinians would require a strong central authority to maintain order and ensure the transition goes well. Unfortunately, Palestinan society is too fragmented right now for such an authority to emerge. A two-state deal would certainly include security guarantees, meaning the palestiian authority would have to make sure no one operates against Israel from its territory. If it can't or won't, Israel would be justified in taking whatever steps to ensure its security. There already is a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, which is majority Palestinian.

So it occurred to you before you made your comment about Islamic phallic symbols that it was invalid, yet you made it anyway. Huh. Uh, I know it's too much to ask for you to keep track of other people's arguments, but could you at least keep track of your own? The letter writer above said the burqa was a symbol of oppression of women and Muslim male sexual neurosis. You tacked on the phallic symbol thing. However, unless the existence of phallic symbols in the west is evidence of western makle sexual neurosis, their existence dispoves your thesis. Phallic symbols are simply objects that look like penises. If you're going to use terminology in a debate, at least make sure you know what it means beforehand. awww - now you're getting all pissy because I illustrated to you the OBVIOUS difference between symbols of male domination and opression and abuse of women in a muslim society, and a simple tall building in a western city. and if you can't see the link between opression of women, giant phallic symbols and burqas, I simply feel sorry for you.

Did the pig tell you that? I'm bringin' sexy back(bacon)...