JerrySeinfeld

Changing that particular word would be a but strange since the prefix 'hetero' means 'different'. You can't make that statement about marriage. That word now refers to two people in a committed relationship of either sex. A few people have a problem with that change but a few people had a problem with changing the meaning of the word 'person' to include women back in the 20s. So it is unlikely there will be any question about the meaning of the marriage word 20 years from now. 20 years? you're right on that. in our eager-to-be-progressive, can't-wait-to-lose-last-years-tradition society you can bet the definition will be "any union between one man,one woman, or one man and another man or one man and seven women...." - surely to satisfy the muslims among us as we know it's important to satisfy every minority right as it pertains to the legal definition of words.......blah blah blah good stuff guys - keep the hits a comin'

haha! i haven't laughed so hard in awhile. thank you for that media people forming their own opinions? lol. great stuff. have you been to Iraq? Did you know most of the media hang around in the same hotel bar together discussing "the story"...the herd mentality - "herd" of it? THERE is your story, friend. a massive herd of sheep all telling the SAME lefty story and spilling it about on the internet via email. THAT's the point, since u missed it

The meaning of words changes all of the time - there is nothing wrong with it. The word 'liberal' used to refer to people in favour of free markets and free trade. It still is in the academic world. This hasn't changed, you just weren't aware of it. Since we're changing meanings, how about changing the meaning of the word "heterosexual" to include same sex couples?

Proven that people in the media have personal opinions? Nothing wrong with that. I would seriously doubt the competance of any journalist that spent time studing the issues and did not come to similar conclusions about Bush. You guys completely missed the point. The point isn't that a top ABC news producer comprimised his objectivity by revealing his left leaning anti bush bias. It's that he felt comfortable enough assuming he could email these feelings to others in the organization and that they would feel the same way. If this bias is OK and expected, then why is the producer so apologetic?

So, you want religions to determine to whom the state should issue certain licenses? That seems very theocratic to me. No, the British system didn't restrict gays from "marriage" because it is a private and/or religious arrangement. They only offered gays "civil union" certificates, not the same marriage licenses they hand out to every capricious straight couple before they head to the altar for the fifth or sixth time. Same sexmarriage is an oxymoron. You can't call a man you likes men a heterosexual can you? Well I suppose you could, but you'd be changing the definition of a word. If we started calling man-woman couples homosexual, would we gain anything? Running around changing the definition of words is an odd excercise.

Won what? The US and Britian had enough nukes in the 70s to ensured the Soviets could do nothing more than rattle sabres. The massive military spending did nothing to affect the final outcome other than possibly make it happen a few years sooner. At what cost? Bankrupting the US economy and creating another generation of terrorists out for American blood? Embolding Iran to the point where it is determined to acquire nukes no matter what the rest of the world says? The Pope ended the cold war. Bush is always saying bringing democracy to Iraq will make peace throughout the middle-east. Something I tend to agree with. But installing puppets isn't bringing democracy, so its a hypocritical load of crap. Bush wasn't around for all the "puppet regimes" mentioned in earlier posts.

ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED haha - we all knew it- now its proven.

Who said anything about democracizing?

What I'm really interested in is what the "living wage" advocates think of this. If people start using these on a regular basis, will businesses still need the same amount of cashiers they employed before? If not, what's going to happen to the cashiers who suddenly find themselves making $0/hour? What do you guys think? Replace 'em (the cashiers) - if that s what the market wants. Too bad for the cashiers. They'll land on their feet. Maybe some will find work as automated cashier machine attendants. Definition of a union: (1) an organization that attempts to recieve more than market value for it's members. (2) an organization that promotes inefficiency by protecting jobs that would otherwise be obselete.

If this were the case, then rightwingers would not be against the legalization of marijuana (gov't intrusion); they would not be against a women's right to choose abortion (gov't intrusion); they would not be against couples of the same sex being married (gov't intrusion). IMO -- the right in Canada would like to see MORE gov't intervention in personal matters. Right wingers are wrongly characterized as religious, pro life, and marijuana etc. Not me. I actually can't think of any of the rightwingers i talk to as these things. Its a fringe part of a much larger group. One thing unites all rightwingers, though: low taxes.

Many species eat their young - what's your point. And you hit on my point: for women raising the young is often not a burden, but an instinct and purpose. Men are hard wired to procreate with MANY partners then leave. Women are hard wired to procreate and bond with a long term partner for protection and provision for the young. That is a difference and the crux of the discussion. Recall the original topic is the financial burden of raising of child and acception resposibility commensurate with the ultimate freedom of choice. As it stand women hold freedom of choice without ultimate resposibility for that choice. Some have suggested the "burden" of raising childeren is enough resposibility and I have correctly pointed out that for most women this is not a burden but an instinct and a pleasure. And women on this post have ardently agreed with me on this point.

I calculated and took an average of 30 people being killed every day there. Now that may be a bit high, but some times it is 10 sometimes it is 100 for the day. So even if 30/day over the last 3 years gives me 30 x 3 x 365 = 32,850 I think that number is low personaly. But this is just an average. I would guess that the numbers are closer to 100,000 deaths. This still pales in comparison to the 1-2 million infants and childeren who were systematically starved to death under the 10 year UN sanction program. Keep those numbers rolling if Saddam is still in power and you'll see your US "invasion" looks like a cakewalk compared to the "Saddam in power" alternative. Keep up the good work GWB.

Actually Iraq broke international law by flouting UN sanctions imposed after gulf war in 1992. The US merely enforced those long broken sanctions. International law became a joke when the UN refused to enforce it's own sanctions. Nuff said.

I can. We're laughed at worldwide for our sickening patriotism. Our military wants to help out in afghanistan but needs to hitch a ride from the USA. Our national animal is the beaver. We actually believe we are cooler than americans because our beer has an extra 0.5% alcohol, and our prime minister, when addressing the UN gets the PRIME spot between azerbajan and uruguay. You have absolutely no link, no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement that Canada is "a global joke". Just your rightwing attitude and nothing more. Nothing substantive, nothing quantitative, nothing period. Canada -- LOVE it or LEAVE it! I can get behind that, love it or leave it. We all have the choice to live here or somewhere else. If Canada is not for you, due to whatever reasons, then get out. Simple and easy as that. If you hate Canada and the attitudes it has, get out. This is another thing that is Canadian is bitching about anything and everything but hoping someone else will cure your problems. I like Americans for the most part, I really REALLY despise the government they have, have not really liked any administration in the past 20 years. Its not the NHL dude. I don't have to change teams. I'm just not a nationalist simpleton like you. Since when did everyone here get the Calgary disease: inability to self-criticize?

I guess if you wanna see where the runaway tolerant-socialist-bleeding-heart-progressive train leads...look to holland.

Can you provide sources for your stats? Yep - I live in downtown Vancouver. Come here and walk down the street. There's your stats.

Something you don't hear alot of....a european perspective on things... this link leads to a very interesting set of thoughts... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15044

I can. We're laughed at worldwide for our sickening patriotism. Our military wants to help out in afghanistan but needs to hitch a ride from the USA. Our national animal is the beaver. We actually believe we are cooler than americans because our beer has an extra 0.5% alcohol, and our prime minister, when addressing the UN gets the PRIME spot between azerbajan and uruguay. You have absolutely no link, no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement that Canada is "a global joke". Just your rightwing attitude and nothing more. Nothing substantive, nothing quantitative, nothing period. Canada -- LOVE it or LEAVE it! if I started a website called canadatheglobaljoke.com would you believe me? haha. of course there is no link or evidence. anyone who has travelled the world knows it to be common knowledge.

I read somewhere that the total deaths of American soldiers in Iraq is about 2200, which compares with ONE MONTH (May, 1968) worth of deaths in Vietnam. If this is true, then why do some hollywood-types-turned political "experts" keep comparing the two wars. From what I have seen, the Iraq war is quite successful. Sure, Bagdad and the Sunni triangle are messy, but the majority of the country is quite civil and stable. in a December 2005 poll, 68% of Iraqis said life is good, compared with 19% and 23% in france and germany respectively. The lefty media wants a civil war so badly. But sometimes wishes don't come true. Is anyone else a little tired of the false Vietnam comparison?

Problem: a muslim family dispute could very easily BE a criminal offense. When a muslim man beats his wife, do you think she's going to speak up when asked if she wants to abide by the sharia dispute mechanism? NO! She's going to OK it. Wife beating is a common practise in muslim households, even approved of by the Koran. This new "shari dispute mechanism" smells of the stuff in Australia, where police handbooks suggest lesser action against muslim wife-beaters out of "respect for religious habits and traditions". I posted the Australian example months ago, and titled the post "is Canada next"? Guess what? we ARE next. What a disgusting country. As a Muslim, I'm totally against Sharia law having any legal basis in Canada. I thought we went through this already and decided no? In the Ontario case, there were many Muslims opposed to Sharia, and voiced opposition. I don't even believe in Sharia, it is not the word of God, it is some clerics interpretation. As an example, the Koran says "no compulsion in religion", yet in Afghanistan they want the death penalty for conversion. It's obvious to me that the Sharia there is completely opposite to what the Koran says. It's obvious that it is faulty, artificial, a tool for the powerful. If so, why are Muslims so attached to it? my 2 cents, Arif WOW. Thank you Arif for your Candor and honesty. This is great stuff. I have a question for you...you ask at the end of your post: "why are muslims so attached to it?" So my question is...ARE most muslims attached to it?

I can. We're laughed at worldwide for our sickening patriotism. Our military wants to help out in afghanistan but needs to hitch a ride from the USA. Our national animal is the beaver. We actually believe we are cooler than americans because our beer has an extra 0.5% alcohol, and our prime minister, when addressing the UN gets the PRIME spot between azerbajan and uruguay.

What's wrong with puppet regimes?

Sure, but it won't make your dick bigger (though it may turn you into a giant prick). LOL - take some of that granola money and buy yourself a sense of humor. and you wonder why lefties are the laughing stock of the party....SMILE once in awhile

Problem: a muslim family dispute could very easily BE a criminal offense. When a muslim man beats his wife, do you think she's going to speak up when asked if she wants to abide by the sharia dispute mechanism? NO! She's going to OK it. Wife beating is a common practise in muslim households, even approved of by the Koran. This new "shari dispute mechanism" smells of the stuff in Australia, where police handbooks suggest lesser action against muslim wife-beaters out of "respect for religious habits and traditions". I posted the Australian example months ago, and titled the post "is Canada next"? Guess what? we ARE next. What a disgusting country.

Hey, if you're securlar you're also more likely to have penetrative gay anal sex with a shephard in a tent. What's yous point?