JerrySeinfeld

TV news is one way to get a certain kind of information. But they're more likely to show people demonstrating than sitting at home peacefully are they ? certainly - i am sure they'd televise christians blowing themselves up as much as possible - if they could find any.

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you? Here's what AI specifies: Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples. It doesn't include it.

What do you want me to check my facts about? What Moderate muslims think of Gays? Okay here: http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/mission.html "We oppose gender apartheid that is practiced in parts of our community, and believe it is contrary to the equity among men and women enshrined in Islam. We believe that Muslim men and women should work together, shoulder-to-shoulder, in their effort to rejuvenate our community." ""Members of many of our communities are from racial and religious minority groups that themselves experience discrimination, and we understand that human rights as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must extend to everyone, including gay men and lesbians," Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress said." Ofcourse, this is not the opinion of all Muslim. I don't generalize. But it is my opinion on the subject matter and that of other Muslims who are like minded. I won't not make a habit of having to justify Islam to you. You are too close minded. I am sure there are lots of nice muslims. Like there were lots of nice Germans in 1940-1945. Lots of good that did the jews.

It's pretty similar to a few religions I know. This is the method people use to condemn Islam: 1) Decide that Islam is the culprit behind the problems coming from that part of the world. 2) Set out to determine what in Islam is the cause of the problems. 3) When confronted with similarities to other religions, go back to the fact that problems exist in the first place as proof that Islam is to blame. I only see young muslims men self-detonating around the world. Sawing off people's heads in the name of their god. Burning embassies and boycotting denmark over what? CARTOONS? lol - yea - lots of similarities. Watch the news buddy.

His columns are laced with frat boy prejudice, and should just be dismissed or maybe read on the Howard Stern show. Steyn is satyrical. That's not anti muslim. Nice try.

Steyn states facts. Please point out the "anti Islam" comments...

All I know is that when I drink...it takes a while to get tipsy and then its bedtime or 2am and noone cares. WHereas when I smoke pot (VERY rarely), it takes like one puff and I'm wasted. my two cents.

I don't think anyone would argue that some women arevery capable on the battlefield, in the firehouse, in the precinct etc. But en masse women are less physcially capable than men. As a result we need to be sure we don't simply add women at the cost of our standards for the sake of progressiveness. When it comes to our safety and human lives, we have to draw the line and make sure the very same standards must be met by men AND women.

It's not the Christian religion that is moderate -- it's the society that it's located in. Here in the "west" we have the benefit of a secular society to keep religion in check. Yes, Islam seems to be a more violent religion than Christianity but only because they don't have a population of people saying "you can't do that". If 90% of our education was based on the Holy Bible then we would be as admant in our religion. If there were no non-believers, the Pat Robertsons of the world would certainly run amok with their brand of religious fanaticism. "Moderate" Christians like you only exist because of us non-believers, as do moderate muslims. Who said I was christian? I'm not. And if you believe muslims only perpetrate violence in mostly muslim countries you'd be wrong - look at france and denmark. Although, those ARE mostly muslim countries...so I take it back.

I think corporations always hire people to represent their interests, and their primary interest is making money. Socialism isn't profitable and therefore wouldn't be and isn't promoted. Matt Lauer? You mean the host of the Today Show? Doesn't he exclusively cover soccer mom stories? Actually all I said was Hollywood is out to make money. You projected the rest--the first stage of dementia. Your lefty conspiracy theory doesn't hold water. The movies and newsmedia are mostly small pieces of large publically owned corporations. They are left leaning. 'nuff said.

Zogby? haha! "respected"? by whom? anti-war zealots?

Agreed.

I don't favor child porn. But I do have to admit that in general our puritan society is obsessed with talking about sex crimes to a strange degree. Some kind of repression going on here?

If you think the board of directors of General Electric sits around and puts forth an agenda for NBC news you're living in a dreamworld. You said it yourself, its the bottom line that matters. The chairman of GE has no interest in Matt Lauer's politics as long as people like his face and flip it to NBC every morning. There is a blurred line between "news" and "entertainment" in the western countries. Newstypes hobnob with hollywood types all the time. Now if you're telling me hollywood isn't one of the biggest cesspools or lefty "progressive" bias around, then you're definitely even more delusional than I thought.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated. Correction: please show me where "gay marriage" is listed as a Human Right in Amnesty International?

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated. Show me amnesty's section on gays please.

That is good to hear. It was not more 50 years ago the greatest democracy on Earth allowed black people to vote and even while we criticize other fledgling democracies our own records on gay rights is less then stellar. Afghans still live in a backwards culture. We need to give the moderates and liberals time to change their society. It can’t happen overnight. Check your facts and ask yourself what EVEN MODERATE Muslims think about abortion, gay marriage or women's rights. Don't like Pat Robertson? He's a puppydog compared to what the "moderate" muslim imams and clerics in Islamic countries would do to gays, and abortionists. The get back to me on "tolerance". Making the mistake of "tolerating" a religion that doesn't tolerate any of the western freedoms is a common but not-well-thought-out lefty contradiction.

Gee. I wonder what your agenda is? Just a quick search on wikipedia brings up these non "ANCIENT HISTORY" tidbits for you consumption. Not that facts have any place in your ideaology anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pe...ristians#Canada " During 1995-1998 Newfoundland had only Christian schools (four of them, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and inter-denominational (Anglican, Salvation Army and United Church)). The right to organize publicly supported religious schools was only given to certain Christian denominations, thus tax money used to support a selected group of Christian denominations. The denominational schools could also refuse admission of a student or the hiering of a qualified teacher on purely religious grounds." "In some U.S. jurisdictions legal restrictions exist which require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office, for instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God) [7] thus atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers, who do not believe in a supreme being would be excluded from public office if the test were enforced. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [8] North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." [9] South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." [10] Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." [11] Similarly, some state laws are framed with the intention of toleration of religious difference, but are criticized for coming short of withdrawing all mention of belief in God, or of Christianity. Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III (approved and ratified November 6, 1990): "make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."", "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law." [12] " Great start. Now find me an example of the punishment for any of your above-examples being DEATH and then we caqn talk about a fair comparison with the "rational" muslims.

So you agree that as long as you sell papers and get viewers the big bad "multinationals" don't care? If that's your comment then your previous comment about multinationals has no merit whatsoever. Try to stay consistent.

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them. If you told me you had aliens in your basement I would laugh, and wouldn't bother debunking. Again, more laughter, not enough debunking. Nothing to prove you are correct or I am wrong. Just nothing but laughter. Is that all I am expected to get out of you in this thread? Other than the fact that you guys are ridiculous, yes...that is all you can expect. Actually spending any time to debunk your speculations would award this conspiracy-theory garbage with far more credit than it deserves. Again, thanks for the entertainment value guys.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

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.

Exactly how would having the gov't call gay marriages 'civil unions' affect hetrosexual marriages? Society is changing. People will call same sex unions marriages if that is what they want. Some churches will hold marriage ceremonies for gay people and will not distinguish them from hetro marriages no matter what the gov't says. In short, having two definitions for the same thing is a big waste of gov't time and money that accomplishes nothing other than giving a few bigots the illusion that they are living in a society that does not exist anymore. "A few bigots?" check the poll - it's 42% of the population. Typical lefty drag queen stuff to say we should change the definition "because we want to". There really is no good reason.

Why do you suppose the multinationals that own the media would use it as a leftist propaganda tool? And on a local note, why do reporters repeatedly go to right-wing organs like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy for comment on stories but never equivalent left-wing organizations? I dunno - ask George Clooney, Michael Moore, Stephen Spieberg.....lol they all work with Multinationals too. Doesn't seem to affect the lefty propaganda they spew.

Michael, I think the point is that if a person assumes the right to spend alot of your money on your behalf (usually without your direct permission), then that person cannot hide behind claims of a right to privacy (think of what that would imply).I like US libel laws. If someone chooses to get into the public arena, then that person must accept the risks of being misinterpreted and maligned. But the public servant can't legally spend your money in private. His private life and his public service are two separate issues.