JerrySeinfeld

People like to debunk sterotypes because they are innaccurate, self-fulfilling and often used to justify ridiculous beliefs and policies. The fact is, there is often more variance within gender groups than between them: in other words men may, on average, be physically stronger than women, but men in general aren't, necessarily. Get a grip.

She writes at length about it and how it must be revitalized. another great quote:

Men prove they are men by how much they know about football? My very masculine hubby does not have any interest in sports. Loves to go fishing and target practicing (with a rifle) with our son but that's about it. I know more about Hockey than he does. GO CANUCKS! WHY OH WHY are people so dead det on debunking stereotypes about genders. They're there for a reason. Yes they are generalizations and they do have exceptions, but they are GENERALLY accurate. If someone spots a burgler and says "well, the perpetrator was wearing lipstick and tight clothing and ran all "dainty" like"...good chance it was a WOMAN!!!! Sure, some moron will speak up with some obscure anecdote and say "my half-brother is a gay man and he wears lipstick and runs all dainty-like!" Good for your half brother, we'll keep that in mind....lol Coming up with exceptions to generalizations doesn't make them any less valid. It just establishes that there are exceptions. GENERALLY men know more about sports than women. GENERALLY men are stronger than women. GENERALLY women are more emotionally demonstrative than men. GENERALLY women are better at non-verbal communication than men. GENERALLY men are better at focussing on tasks than women. GENERALLY women are better multitaskers.... and on and on.

You really are very prejudiced aren't you. Women don't know anything about football? I know many that do. I personally know nothing about the NCAA tournament, I don't care for sub-pro athletics myself. I do know women that have followed March madness. Yes there are exceptons, but generally women aren't very knowledgeable about football.

Like that abortion clinic bomber, or religious terrorists of every stripe that are TV news' ambassadors to the world of religion. It might make more sense if you condemned religion altogether as the source of strife and violence through the ages. Many people take that stance as well. Many people think if there was no religion the Jews and Arabs would live in peace. Others use some rationale to demonize one side over the other. From a book WRITTEN by a muslim woman:

LinkThat makes sense to me. A 3/4% increase in the States over the next few months or so, and then no changes except for adjustments based on new shocks. If oil stays high I can see rates climbing higher than even that to curb inflation

can't wait to hear the comments on this one

Here is a link: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/thebook.ht...ublewithislamis to a very interesting woman - a muslim woman - and self-proclaimed muslim-refusenik and author of the book "The Trouble With Islam Today" Some excerpts: another: and... VERY important... Check the link for more intelligence...

Now you're getting it! Good for you, Geoffrey!!

Not only is that point completely irrelevant to this discussion, it's also wrong. oops my typo - fastest GROWING religion in the country. and it's not irrelevant. France in flames by 2010. Watch the Islamo-ghettos closely.

Ever heard of bracket creep? Since when is $60K per year in today's world a "top income bracket"?

WAIT! EUREKA! I'VE GOT IT: IT WAS PROFESSOR PLUM IN THE LIBRABY WITH THE CANDLESTICK!!!!

Hey, I'm conservative in Canada - I don't think that's a danger for me

Jerry, have you even looked into AI stance on marriage? It is opposed to restricting people's right to marriage. For example, Albania tried to restrict the ability of people with mental illness to marry. AI vehemently opposed this. It doesn't explicitly say in the paragraph above that people with disabilities have the right to marry, however it is assumed. Specificly if it doesn't explictly exclude one group, then by default it includes them. Same thing applies to hetrosexuals. link So maybe now that I've demonstrated that AI's definition of rights is more inclusive than you give them credit for. so instead of these one line dodges where you evade the point, you can point out some evidence from AI which shows that it should be exclusively limited to hetrosexuals. Hey, if a brokeback guy who likes sex in the bum wants to get hitched, it doesn't bother me. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that it's not about human rights, its about getting what you want. Big BIG difference.

Yep. When will people stop apologizing for Muslim violence and start condemning it.

I think we should develope our military to complement our allies in small but meaningful ways - kind of like the "Canadarm" in the space shuttle.

Take a wild guess what the #1 religion in France is. Hint: It's not Catholicism.

Is hetero marriage? is polygamy?

Hey all. So I was flipping through the channels and came across an old action flick: "Executive Decisions." Seriously I had to laugh in amazement. Why? The premise of the movie is a group of Islamic terrorists who hijack a plane filled with deadly nerve gas and plan to suicidally crash the plane into a major american city. Racial generalization? Sure. Acurate? Absolutely. Now, recall this movie was made long before 9-11. OK now here is what made me laugh: can anyone count how many fictional hollywood movies SINCE 9-11 have posited fanatical arabs as the bad guy? I can't think of any. In fact from what I have read, MANY movies (eg. The Interpreter) originally had Islamics as the bad guy but in an attempt at "correctness" changes the terrorists to small african countries etc. Not too acurate, but safe. In the wake of the Danish Cartoons and newsroom editors in THAT "peaceful" country living under 24-hour armed gaurd, it kinda makes me wonder how much of this self-censorship is due to "sensitivity" and how much is due to personal safety of the hollywood producer who doesn't want his house and family in Pasadena blown to bits. George Clooney and hollywood would have us believe he's a renegade making anti-establishment movies about.....MCCARTHYISM or GAYS!!!! (conflicts that were long ago won by the left) Hollywood: if you REALLY want to make a "controversial" movie, let's see a flick about lesbian islamic women in afghanistan, or Gay suicide bombers - a la "romea and juliet". Then we'll see what you're made of. A little different making "provocative" movies about people like muslim terrorists...who can ACTUALLY be provoked eh?

"Bath house Brison"? Give ME A BRRREAK!!!

Giving money and power to government is like giving alcohol andcar keys to teenage boys. Off with their heads! All we've seen our government do is consistently raise taxes and provide LESS services. Time to privatize I say!

The US is kicking butt in the middle east and you better get used to it. Last thing we need is a "made in canada" plan. We'd all be drowning in UN bullshit while the muslims plan the liquidation of the jewish state and the conquer of the world.

Doesn't say men WITH women... Says "spouses" not "husband" or "wife" It says "family" not "husband" with "wife" with "children". But it doesn't say "penetrative anal sex with shephard in a tent" either

Puppet regimes can be necessary evils when fighting the soviets. They did it too - in fact it was a commen tactic on both sides to avoid direct confrontation. Check your Social Studies grade 10 text under "spheres of influence" Now please give me an example of something in the present context or stop with this incongruent reasoning. Why are the necessary evils? I would assume there would be a serious draw back to this. Yes I understand that Afghanistan was home to the Taleban. And the US supplied them with tech and weapons to combat the Soviets. Now that the Soviets have fallen, the US felt is was safe enough for them to clean up the mess they helped make. Karzai is a damn puppet and you damn well know that. The government was elected sure, but the law of the land remains the same. In effect, no change at all. Only difference now is that the US can pull his strings from the saftey of the White House. That's pure speculation - but u might be right: if it were a true muslim government the dude who tried to convert to christianity would be dead.

It doesn't not include it. so gay marriage is not a human right