JerrySeinfeld

How is that movement belittling the sacraifices of soldiers? Who expressed that belief? It's implicit in the "pro peace" message utilizing a symbol that remembers that we FOUGHT A WAR for what was right and good. Roughly 25% of people are against war NO MATTER WHAT. So 25% of people probably would have NOT supported the war against Hitler's Nazis. And that's exactly what wer'e encountering again here in our worldwide striggle against Islamofascism. Traitors.

Good one Mr. Plagarist And by "we" you mean "somebody else". But hey, you can do your part too. Typical lefty view - ghettoizing the war like Mr. Kerry. The only people who wage war are soldiers? LOL. Maybe in lefty ivorytowerland. NATIONS wage war my friend. And that means you don't send Kerry's interpretation of white trash overseas , then stab their mission in the back while stating that you "support the troops".

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike." Listen. The very first step in waging unconventional war is so obvioius its right ni front of our eyes but the lefties don't understand it. To win, you need to believe in your society. We (lefties) are a self-loathing group. We hate our own traditions, our own beliefs, our own history. Contrast that with Islamofascists: They are self confident, aggressive and belief they are RIGHT. If we are to win this unconventional struggle, it starts with not being as bleeding heart, over sensitive society that apologizes for itself.

These people are ignorant losers with nothing better to do than undermine our mission, our fallen and our society at large. They should move to the Pushtun Plain, buy a herd of yaks and a copy of the Koran and be done with it.

Good one Mr. Hindsight. Just because you and the lefty pantywaistes can't handle a tough struggle doesn't mean we should all be trying our best to run away in the opposite direction at the first sign of difficulty. We need to up the presence in that assbackwards part of the world - no quesiton about it.

This forum is getting lame. Why can't someone start a good thread.

i forgot to credit it - its great stuff though eh?

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated. So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet. Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three. Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming. Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards. Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas! But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont). In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate. In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate. In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats. Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party. During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.) So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy. The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia." The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room. As well there is room for movement in the pro-choice camp. As militant as one might be about the concept of a women controlling her "own" body (at the expense of the fetus's body), I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't want to REDUCE the overall number of abortions. It's not a pleasant "I'm proud to be a woman" experience. If there is policy or guidelines which increase women's accountability or educate women about other options, I can't see how that in any way curtails someone's freedom.

Uh. No. "I don't want to rape you..." but I will. Sounds like a threat to me. Whats the point of this argument you guys are engaging in? The bottom line is: This is a thread about the unjust treatment of women by predominantly Muslim countries. Women who's hair and teeth are falling out because they've been living under a burqa most of their lives and blocking the windows from sunlight so that they can't be "coveted" by men. It's about shooting women in soccer stadiums for adultery. And it's about Black Dog's feeble attempt to compare a definition of rape verdict in a US state as equal footing with the travesty that is womens rights in Muslim countries. Don't get caught up in his BS. Its not even worth the response.

Over the next few years as the Dems take more control (and even the white house?) - I will be very interested to see how pulling out of Iraq and going "left" will affect the Jihad. My bet is that the Jihad will get a lot worse and a lot of peaceniks who's foreign policy is based around hoping the bad guys stop attacking us are in for a rude awakening.

What's that? Cook up a public justification for war based on shoddy intel compiled from convicted felons and third-hand sources, cherry-picked to support the foregone conclusions of the idealogues in charge? When Iraq was "stable", it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq? What were the questions in Iraq? Was there this bad man? Was he running a bad country? That did bad things? Did it have a lot of oil money to do bad things with? Was it going to do more bad things? If those were the questions, was the answer "more time to let international sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections do their job"? No, the answer was blow the place to bits.

And why would that fact in and of itself piss of Albertans, unless the east was using that political power to screw over Alberta financially? I'll see your lived there for 30 years and raise you a I was born there. There is more to running the country than money. Gay marriage? Health Care? These are a couple of issues Albertans don't agree with trudeaupia on. I was born in Alberta too. But I act like it You belong in Trudeaupia - ie. Toronto.

Why do you have such disdain for the innocent Afghanis who are relying on our troops? My view is that as a Canadian my obligations are toward the noble men and women who signed up to defend this country. I think we should be more concerned with protecting their lives and limbs than with the impossible to resolve needs of remote foreigners. (Sorry to Ricki Bubba if that doesn't sound reasonable to him, but his faculty of reason is demonstrably impaired anyway.) Based on this logic I presume we should take the "peacekeepers" off of our money.

The Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war time have nothing to do with the UN. Dancer's right: the instant we start fighting like "the terrorists" we surrender whatever claims of moral superiority we have left. "The terrorists" don't even exist under geneva conventions. Since they aren't legally "enemy combatants" that excludes them from the right to claim status under the conventions.

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it..... The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend. Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?

No. Alberta's complaints (other than the NEP) have always related to the fact that the election is over by the time they turn on their sets to catch the results. Liberals from Toronto and Quebec have run this country for decades. THAT is what pisses off Albertans. I lived there for over 30 years, I should know.

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one. I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that. If the terrorists want to fight dirty...then we should also have the option, if we so choose...to fight "dirty" too. That we don't get hauled in front of the tribunal to answer to accusations of "war crimes." No - that wouldn't be "fair". C'mon - this is news to you? We have to play by high standards while thug regimes, dictators and despots get all the breaks and leniency? um - it's called the UN

No kidding. I like it when they show the young girls spewing jew-hatred. In the words of the Dixie Chicks "It's a sad sad story That a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger."

Alberta's bitch is about representation in government. Thankfully, now it seems entirely possible that the tables are turning and it will be the 3 major urban centres that are left out in the cold for a change Perhaps its time Toronto takes a turn trying to figure out why the rest of the country is telling it what to do instead of viseversa With regards to separation: in a period and a world where just about group on the face of the earth can (and has) become an independent nation, it appears the Quebec independence movement is the worst failure known to mankind.

Faith and politics National Post Published: Monday, November 06, 2006 According to political cliche, Americans voting in tomorrow's mid-term elections fall into two categories: coastal Democrats, who are so left-wing they might as well be honorary Canadians, and gay-bashing, bible-thumping hayseeds of the South and Midwest. That is certainly the way the media is playing things: Just about every election story you see dwells on the question of whether Republicans will be able to get their religious "base" out to the polls in sufficient numbers to save the Senate from falling into Democratic hands. As a CBC Radio report put it last week, "The Republican[s'] core of white suburban Christian mega-churches [are the party's] font of votes, the key to victory." This simplistic narrative is attractive to American liberals, many of whom see organized religion as a form of brainwashing, and so savour the idea that their enemies' ranks are dominated by unthinking GOP zombies who march in lock-step from church to ballot box. Yet as the numbers show, it's a myth. Yes, America's conservative Christians do tilt Republican. But the numbers aren't nearly as overwhelming as many believe. In a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll released on Thursday, 41% of polled evangelicals said they planned to vote for Democratic congressional candidates, versus 56% who planned to vote Republican. And even this may be overstating the GOP advantage: A New York Times/CBS poll conducted in late October had the evangelical vote split nearly down the middle between the two major parties (42% Democrat vs. 41% Republican). Nor are evangelical Christians dogmatic defenders of George W. Bush's defining project, the war to oust Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to the Middle East. A full 50% of evangelicals polled by WorldPublicOpinion said they wanted a "new approach" to foreign policy. Forty-nine percent agree that the Bush administration "plays on people's fears too much" when promoting its foreign policies. And 44% of polled evangelicals say they want the administration to put a greater focus on diplomacy in protecting the United States from foreign threats. These numbers shouldn't be that surprising. Evangelicals originally flocked to Bush and his party because he presented himself as an observant Christian who respects traditional American values. After 9/11, the embrace got tighter, because these same voters saw Bush as one of the few world leaders willing to defend those values in the face of Islamist fanaticism. They supported the Iraq war not because there is something inherently bellicose about religious Christianity, or out of millenarian fanaticism, but because Saddam Hussein was viewed as a serious threat to the American people and their way of life. Now that the war's aftermath has proven a disappointment, those same churchgoers are -- contrary to zombie stereotype -- re-evaluating their options. In other words, religious voters are just like everyone else: When the facts change, so do their opinions. It's common sense worth remembering as we weather the barrage of paternalistic media stories announcing America's biennial parade of the undead.

HEY! It's a thread designed to juxtapose reality with Liberal scaremongering. You have to admit that the ad now seems quite ridiculous and alot of Torontonians bought into it.

I have seen the rough draughts..... READ JERRYSEINFELDS POSTS We're not making this up I predict a Liberal landslide this time Not really even worth the response, but seriously: are you about 11 yeals old?

Exactly. I have made posts about this periodically and nobody gets it. Hollywood keeps touting itself as "controversial" by making movies about gay cowboys, or the Dixie Chicks criticizing GWB, or (cue drum roll) ...wait for it...MCARTHYISM!!! (ta-da!) I'd like to see United Artists make a big budget movie about a couple of gay yak-herding Muslims and call it "Mohammed and Mustafa Get It on In Paradise" and then start counting the seconds before the head office gets firebombed. A movie about GW Bush being killed is "ballsy" or "controversial"? Go to a starbucks on a saturday morning...that's regular coffee talk!

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one.