JerrySeinfeld

Who's name calling? I am simply stating the incontrovertible scientific fact that you are a Nazi who has intercourse with pigs. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Guilty as charged - and yet I'm still kinder and sexier than you

Who's name calling? I am simply stating the incontrovertible scientific fact that you are a Nazi who has intercourse with pigs. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Guilty as charged

Haha - I knew you'd bring up the calgary tower or the CN tower and actually believe you've brought something new and intersting to the discussion. Gee I never thought of that Kudos for trying. Man, you smart But until we make women dress in burqas from head to toe, shoot women in soccer stadiums as punishment for adultery, sentence them to gang rape, excuse rape as the woman's fault, allow women's hair and teeth to fall out from a lack of sunshine on their faces, I think your "western tall buildings" example rings a bit hollow as a symbol of oppression of women.

The problem is that many, many homosexual culture is strongly hebephilic, and its members (pardon the pun) would most certainly be going after the 14 year olds like lions after lame zebras if they weren't afraid of going to prison for it. It's true. This is a great victory for NAMBLA I'm not necessarily against it however. After all, isn't the age of consent for girls to have normal sex 14 as well? The homos may as well be entitled to the same low standards set out by the heterosexual population lol. The gay lifestyle is certainly more laden with promiscuity and a penchant for the young ones, however. So it might do more damage.

The spanking they received on the Plains of Abraham and the benevolence of the British Empire. j/k j/k but it's true. our society is so self-loathing, we go out and kick the snot out of societies in battle, then feel sorry for them and start making reparations. Listen up Quebec and aboriginals: you got conquered. That doesn't give you the right to endless government payoffs. Deal with it.

Usually when someone runs out of arguments they start namecalling. Sticks and stones Anyway, now that we've established that Eva Longoria's stereotype is basesless let's continue with how conservatives are Kinder and sexier.

Not to mention the phallic symbols which dominate muslim cities. The burqa is a shocking symbol of female subserviancy. Anyone (including delusional, denying or simply AFRAID muslim women) who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

Yea you're right - we need to find a "Montreal" solution. Maybe like west Berlin?

Here we go again. Another national debate about Quebec's status within Canada. This is so tiresome. Let;s face it, Quebec IS different. I mean, if you took Quebec out of most national opinion polls about issues, we would be a heck of a lot different as a country. Quebec's uniquesness skews our federal government's policy on everything from gay marriage to foreign policy. I think Quebec has a right to be free from us and we have a right to be free from them. I don't want this thread to be about logistics - I know there are many difficult things to engineer (but can it really be anymore difficult, expensive and time consuming than the endless constitutional crisis we've had since 1981?). What I am talking about here are ideas, culture and independence. Nevermind that Quebec's Independence movement is the single most unsuccessful in a world where just about any small group of people can become a nation. The fact is, we can all live side by side in peace. Let's just end the misery. This isn't an "I hate Quebec" rant. This is just a plea for an end to this. Let's start the process and help our friends in Quebec separate from Canada!!! Vive La Quebec Libre!!!!

What a fucking stupid statement. We're having this debate because you brought it up in a discussion forum. Your restatement of your (or rather, Frum's) initial premise is truely devastating and overwhelms all the errors and gaps in the initial argument. Oh wait: it doesn't. So if I call you a "Nazi pigf**ker" and you deny it, that proves you are a Nazi pigf**ker. Cool. I presume there is a point in there somewhere?

He-he. Well maybe, but I'm not the one who started the thread. True - but somehow it lives on Keep on protesting I am enjoying this, however. Frum's article begins with Eva Longoria's stereotypes about conservatives. All I have seen thus far is a bunch of lefties basically saying "no, conservatives aren't THAT much nicer than lefties - some of that giving goes to churches" which is hardly a convincing argument. And even if it were true, then we'd be on equal footing. So much for stereotypes

He's not image-building - he's tearing apart stereotypes. The very fact that we're having this debate is a victory for conservatives. The main point here is that, just because you believe in a "feel good" ideology doesn't make you any more of a "kind" or "sexy" person and that many (maybe most?) conservatives are kinder and sexier than their liberal counterparts. So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

By this defenition you would have been against the Allied forces "intervening" in a war between the Nazis and continental Europe. Just what I would have expected.

I would approve the use of force in instances of self-defence and, (and this is an important consideration) in cases of self defence where the use of force is likely to acheive something. For exaple, this past summer, I had no problem with Israel trying to root out Hizbullah rocket launchers. I had a problem with them bombing and blockading the entire country. The use of force must be proportional, and must have measurable results. Not force for force's sake. Hizbullah, to my knowledge, never agreed to a ceasefire in South lebanon. And there was no bilateral agreement on Gaza. Whereas the use of force clearly sends the message that terrorism doesn't work, which is why Israel was able to solve its terrorist problem. Wait...what? It's hard to measure whether force or diplomacy would have worked better when you choose one option over the other - because you can't go back in time to see whether there would have been more or less terrorism as a result of your diplomacy/force. I DO know that there is an old Arabic saying: a falling camel attracts many knives. Certainly when a major leader of the Iraq insurgency claims the democratic victory in the USA as "a sure victory for the insurgency" - and accounting for the fact that the Dems largely campaigned on the premise of ENDING the US involvement in Iraq, surely an endorsement by the insurgency indicates that they're none too happy with the FORCE they're currently facing.

OK so you concede that the 4:1 (conservatives outgiving libs) ratio is accurate. Good to hear. If the ratio is actually equal or less than 1 excluding churchgiving, then by definition 75% or more of conservative giving must be churchgiving. You should take a some math.

I'm not talking about haveing a chat with terrorists. I'm talking about states like Iran and Syria and political entities like Hizbullah, all of which have something to offer and something to gain. And what happens if those conditions are not able to be met? Disarmamaent and a cesation of the hostilities would be a subject for discussion, not a prerequsiste. Did thr IRA give up their weapons before negotiating? The ANC? Has anyone? Silly analogies are the basis of silly policy. Wrong. The IRA agreed to cease terrorism after they were included in the dialogue. -PIRA The same goes for Israel. So we (or rather, they) are at an impasse. Unless the status quo is acceptable, that means someone has to take a big step forward. Since you clearly don't anticipate Hizbulah or Hamas doing so, who does that leave? I'd say roughly 25% of people in the west will ALWAYS be against war or force, no matter what. They would have been against force against the Nazi's as well. So let's determine where you stand, Black Dog. BD I have an honest question for you. At what point WOULD you advocate the use of force or war? Let's say the world "engages" "hezbollah" in "dialogue". Let's set aside the obvious pitfals we saw in the past when Arafat wouild say one thing to us in English and quite another to the palestinians in Arabic back home. But again, let's say we engage in your "diplomacy". Now let's say we reach an agreement. ie. No rockets fired into Israel in exchange for (insert concession here). Or maybe "stop attacking Israel if Israel pulls out of Gaza" (sic). Or "let's have peace if Israel pulls out completely of south lebanon" (sic). Or "it's 1991 - the UN has THESE conditions to the end of the Iraq war....10 years later you still haven't complied and you're flouting our every attempt to make you comply with our resolution..." Sorry, I got caught sidetracked talking about examples of how diplomacy miserably fails with irrational violent dictators and quasi-terrorist groups. Now let's not even get into how diplomacy basically says to terrorist groups "terrorism works - if you blow enough people up, they'll listen." SO back to the questions: Let's say we engage in your "diplomacy". And lets say we reach an agreement. My simple question is this: How many times does one side have to flout an agreement before force is necessary in YOUR eyes? Or maybe you're part of the 25%?

No. By bringing up church giving, Riverwind implicitly makes an unsubstatiated comment that 75% of conservative charitable giving is to churches. And even if that were true (good luck with that one), that still only means that conservatives are on EQUAL footing with lefties. So much for the myth that liberals are kinder. BTW I haven't heard one peep about the comment about Kerry being the candidate preferred by the richest of the rich.

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue. If you could give me some concrete examples (other than tax confiscation) of left wing altruism in the form of dollars and sense, I'd be thrilled to see the comparison.

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners. Ha! You're just mad because I'm sexier than you and kinder too However even if you choose to dispute the facts, at least we're debunking the great stereotype!

Sorry, I dozed off at yet another tiresome and inapplicable appeasement reference. If they want any kind of peace: yes. Peace now or peace later? Wait - forget it - Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Jihad won't allow for either.

It's because there's a strange paradox with lefties: they're obsessed with themselves and with money. Most lefty "community organizations" revolve around how to EXTRACT money from the community, not how to CONTRIBUTE it

It's becoming clear the UN is an organization run by thugs. What other organization in the world would welcome a holocaust denying armageddon-planner to address it's general assembly and take photo-ops with the secretary general? At this point it appears that it's become so fashionable to hate the USA, or GW Bush, that countries (wrongly) find themselves supporting jew-hating, armageddon-loving dictatorial thugs. Or as Peter Mansbridge (mistakenly?) said in an interview recently: "Can we put Iraq back together again?" (as if to imply that wish to go back to the hunky-dory days of good old Saddam Hussein).

a quote from a recent article by David Frum: "You'll never know who will turn up in Washington to talk politics. On Wednesday, the city was graced by actress Eva Longoria, the sultry star of ABC's Desperate Housewives. Addressing an audience of Latino business leaders, she explained the wide appeal of her show: "Everyone on Wisteria Lane has the money of a Republican, but the sex life of a Democrat." It's a pretty good joke — but very poor sociology. Over the past 15 years, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have emerged as the party of upper-income America. In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush among the 4% of voters who described themselves to exit pollsters as "upper class." In 2004, John Kerry won nine of the 10 richest zip codes in the United States. As for sex — well, it turns out that it's Republican (and especially Republican women) who have it more often and better. The two strongest predictors of Republican affiliation in America are (1) marriage and (2) church attendance. These are also the strongest predictors of female sexual satisfaction. The authoritative 1995 University of Chicago survey Sex in America found that conservative Protestant married women were the group most likely to report that they "nearly always" orgasmed during sex. Married women of all religions were almost twice as likely as unmarried women to describe their sex lives as "extremely satisfying." So if offered the choice, reader, you'd be wiser to choose Democratic money and Republican sex. And yet, somehow the joke would not be very funny that way would it? Stereotypes overwhelm even the strongest facts. Here's another stereotype, even deeper and more enduring than Longoria's: Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. Certainly, this is a view deeply held by liberals themselves. Yet the truth is exactly the opposite. Next week, Basic Books will publish an astonishing new volume by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks: Who Really Cares. Prof. Brooks reviews the vast academic literature on charitable giving and arrives at a startling conclusion: By virtually every measure, political conservatives are demonstrably more generous, more honest and more public-spirited than political liberals. Consider for example this one fundamental liberal/conservative dividing line, the question "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality?" In a major 1996 survey, 33% of Americans gave the liberal answer, "yes"; 43% gave the conservative answer, "no." Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers. Correct for income, age and other variables, and you find that people who want government to fight inequality are 10 points less likely to give anything at all — and when they did give, they gave US$263 per year less than a right-winger of exactly the same age earning exactly the same money. A second survey, this one conducted in 2002, found that people who believe that "people should take care of themselves" accounted for 25% of the population — but gave 31% of America's blood. "To put this in perspective," Brooks says, "if the whole population gave blood like opponents of social spending do, the blood supply would increase by more than a quarter. But if everyone in the population gave like government-aid advocates, the supply would drop by about 30%." A third survey found that people who believe that the government "spends too much on welfare" were more likely to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or to give food or money to a homeless person. A fourth found that a poor family that worked for its income donated three times as much money as a family that received an exactly equal income from welfare. It's almost a psychological rule: The more you espouse "compassion" in your politics, the more likely you are to be selfish in your personal behaviour. How often do we hear the generosity of Europe contrasted to the "savage individualism" of the United States? Yet Americans give vastly more to charity: per person, more than twice as much as the Spanish, more than three times as much as the French, seven times as much as the Germans and 14 times as much as the Italians. Despite working an average of 400 hours more per year than their European counterparts, Americans are 15 percentage points more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 points more likely to volunteer than the Swiss and 32 points more likely to volunteer than Germans. (Indeed, 80% of Germans never volunteer their time for any cause at all.) If we must have stereotypes, let's at least have accurate ones. Not only are conservatives sexier than liberals — they are kinder too."

Fair enough. However I don't see the burqa having many side beauty benefits

Did anyone catch that "documentary" about global warming on the 5th estate? What a pile of crap. The whole show questions world renouned scientists for some indirect funding connection to a donor in the energy sector. First of all, give me a break: energy companies charitably give to all kinds of organizations. Second, even if there was some loose or strong connection, that doesn't take away from the science. ie. Play the ball, not the man. Third: The "talking head" they featured on the show as the expert on "bad science" isn't even a scientist. How can a show, with any credibility, attempt to discredit science with a...get this: PUBLIC RELATIONS MAN. The big "expert" on global warming deniars, JAMES HOGGAN, happens to own a PR firm in vancouver. And guess who his clients are? a veritable WHOSE WHO list of ALTERNATIVE ENERGY COMPANIES AND THE DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA