JerrySeinfeld

do you believe in gay marriage? do you believe in choice for women? do you believe in freedom of the press? these are things your muslim brothers do not believe in. yet some on this forum would have you believe that we HATE them for believing and standing for these ideals. or is the real truth that they HATE us and our ideals? let's be frank. i'd love to hear from muslims who believe in GAY MARRIAGE, CHOICE FOR WOMEN and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. would love to be proven wrong by our muslim brothers....

one. and by the way i havent seen any on this.

I don't understand this. Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare. Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning? The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids. SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place. Comments?

You missed the obvious point: It's not about who hates muslims. It's about who muslims hate.

what makes you say that? so now if someone reports politically incorrect sides to an issue , they HATE muslims? what a joke.

haha good one...i think? anyway, the date is within the past 6 months - and obviously many on this site haven't heard of it so it's still fresh. and the fact that no one has heard it illustrates another example of media self-censuring.

Please follow the link...a very short story, don't worry. http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1951292005 comments?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn12.html

Relevance of course, being determined by whether or not they agree with your politics. Then again, I'm sure liberal Hollywood is hurt by your disdain, so much that George Clooney is probably crying himself to sleep on his bed of money right now. Mel Gibson (or any other of the few conservatives in hollywood) isn't any more relevant than Clooney. The whole fraternity out there in hollywood is irrelevant. I don't care what their politics are. When their whole life is based on their ability to detach themselves from reality, its hard to have respect for what they have to say. Very well said. Wasn't it Salmon Rushdie (in fear of his life) who knuckled-under by claiming that people need to learn to distinguish between literature and life. Probably said so to save his own bacon, but inadvertantly highlighted the complete LACK of qualification artists have for offeringpolitical opinions.

Either you don't read what others post, or YOU ARE the troll around here. My guess is the latter. Stick to the issues fleabag.

Marc Lepine's father Liess Gharbi was an Algerian immigrant, a Muslim who taught his boy how to hate women. Not that he particularly cared about his son, whom he considered little more than a nuisance. People were generally shocked how Liess behaved towards his wife and children -- not only the wife beatings, but also little things such as locking Marc and his sister in their bedroom (complete with portapotty), in the name of preserving "peace and quiet" of the household.

In thinking about the Muslim outrage at the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon, I came to wonder what else has offended Muslims in the use/depcition of Mohammed. We do know that the chocolate swirl at the very top of a famous ice cream cone in the UK has been discontinued due to the OUTRAGE by the Muslim community that the swirl resembles the Arab word for "Mohammed" (I'm not kidding). But what about other examples of the name of Mohammed used publicly? It got me to thinking about examples, and whether or not we have seen ANY outrage on the part of the Muslim community. 1. MOHAMMED Atta (the ringleader of hijackers on 9-11). 2. John Allen MUHAMMED (Washington DC area sniper). There are two examples given above. If Muslims are offended by the improper representation or depction of the name MOHAMMED in ANY WAY...where is the outrage. I challenge others on this forum to come up with OTHER examples of the improper use of the name MOHAMMED. My guess is that there are DOZENS, unfortunately mostly under the VIOLENT category.

Hollywood cracks me up. All of these best picture movies are supposed to be "maverick" in Haggis' words and controversial? A movie about McCarthy-ism is controversial? or Gays? Or Racism in LA? That's all so yesterday. what's controversial about movies that cover long-dead topics? These "controversial" films are preaching to the converted. OH MY GOD! Hollywood and GAYS??? STOP IT!!! haha. Want real bravery in filmmaking? Real "provocative" movies? Let's see hollywood crank out a film about two gay Muslims in the middle east getting it on. Then maybe Hollywood can call itself "maverick" and "brave".

Given the tone of a lot of the recent threads here, I would say that all Muslims have been painted with the same brush, and the only hints at solutions have been leaning toward either ostracism or eradication. Sure not all Muslims are fanatical militants. Similarly as all Germans were not nazis or SS...but alot of good that did the jews or the world in WWII. Why don't "non-militant" muslims speak out against violence and intimidation by their militant counterparts?

Needing to wake up, West just closes its eyes February 26, 2006 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST In five years' time, how many Jews will be living in France? Two years ago, a 23-year-old Paris disc jockey called Sebastien Selam was heading off to work from his parents' apartment when he was jumped in the parking garage by his Muslim neighbor Adel. Selam's throat was slit twice, to the point of near-decapitation; his face was ripped off with a fork; and his eyes were gouged out. Adel climbed the stairs of the apartment house dripping blood and yelling, "I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven." Is that an gripping story? You'd think so. Particularly when, in the same city, on the same night, a Jewish woman was brutally murdered in the presence of her daughter by another Muslim. You've got the making of a mini-trend there, and the media love trends. Yet no major French newspaper carried the story. This month, there was another murder. Ilan Halimi, also 23, also Jewish, was found by a railway track outside Paris with burns and knife wounds all over his body. He died en route to the hospital, having been held prisoner, hooded and naked, and brutally tortured for almost three weeks by a gang that had demanded half a million dollars from his family. Can you take a wild guess at the particular identity of the gang? During the ransom phone calls, his uncle reported that they were made to listen to Ilan's screams as he was being burned while his torturers read out verses from the Quran. This time around, the French media did carry the story, yet every public official insisted there was no anti-Jewish element. Just one of those things. Coulda happened to anyone. And, if the gang did seem inordinately fixated on, ah, Jews, it was just because, as one police detective put it, ''Jews equal money.'' In London, the Observer couldn't even bring itself to pursue that particular angle. Its report of the murder managed to avoid any mention of the unfortunate Halimi's, um, Jewishness. Another British paper, the Independent, did dwell on the particular, er, identity groups involved in the incident but only in the context of a protest march by Parisian Jews marred by ''radical young Jewish men'' who'd attacked an ''Arab-run grocery.'' At one level, those spokesmonsieurs are right: It could happen to anyone. Even in the most civilized societies, there are depraved monsters who do terrible things. When they do, they rip apart entire families, like the Halimis and Selams. But what inflicts the real lasting damage on society as a whole is the silence and evasions of the state and the media and the broader culture. A lot of folks are, to put it at its mildest, indifferent to Jews. In 2003, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the "greatest menace to world peace." Only 59 percent? What the hell's wrong with the rest of 'em? Well, don't worry: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent. Since then, Iran has sportingly offered to solve the problem of the Israeli threat to world peace by wiping the Zionist Entity off the face of the map. But what a tragedy that those peace-loving Iranians have been provoked into launching nuclear armageddon by those pushy Jews. As Paul Oestreicher, Anglican chaplain of the University of Sussex, wrote in the Guardian the other day, "I cannot listen calmly when an Iranian president talks of wiping out Israel. Jewish fears go deep. They are not irrational. But I cannot listen calmly either when a great many citizens of Israel think and speak of Palestinians in the way a great many Germans thought and spoke about Jews when I was one of them and had to flee." It's not surprising when you're as heavily invested as the European establishment is in an absurd equivalence between a nuclear madman who thinks he's the warm-up act for the Twelfth Imam and the fellows building the Israeli security fence that you lose all sense of proportion when it comes to your own backyard, too. "Radical young Jewish men" are no threat to "Arab-run groceries." But radical young Muslim men are changing the realities of daily life for Jews and gays and women in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Oslo and beyond. If you don't care for the Yids, big deal; look out for yourself. The Jews are playing their traditional role of the canaries in history's coal mine. Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well: ''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.'' Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia, and the other half's feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates. But just as telling is how swiftly the developed world has internalized an essentially Islamic perspective. In their pitiful coverage of the low-level intifada that's been going on in France for five years, the European press has been barely any less loopy than the Middle Eastern media. What, in the end, are all these supposedly unconnected matters from Danish cartoons to the murder of a Dutch filmmaker to gender-segregated swimming sessions in French municipal pools about? Answer: sovereignty. Islam claims universal jurisdiction and always has. The only difference is that they're now acting upon it. The signature act of the new age was the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran: Even hostile states generally respect the convention that diplomatic missions are the sovereign territory of their respective countries. Tehran then advanced to claiming jurisdiction over the citizens of sovereign states and killing them -- as it did to Salman Rushdie's translators and publishers. Now in the cartoon jihad and other episodes, the restraints of Islamic law are being extended piecemeal to the advanced world, by intimidation and violence but also by the usual cooing promotion of a spurious multicultural "respect" by Bill Clinton, the United Church of Canada, European foreign ministers, etc. The I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmonee crowd have always spoken favorably of one-worldism. From the op-ed pages of Jutland newspapers to les banlieues of Paris, the Pan-Islamists are getting on with it.

No. That would be a submission to the cartoon contest currently being held in Iran.

Or privatization of health care...free trade with the US, signing the missile defense deal...global warming...you name it! HAHA - lefties LOVE the slippery slope - they've based most of their opinions on it. Problem is, history keeps proving them wrong.

So you're saying that tolerance is just a slippery slope, and that once you start being tolerant to one thing, it just snowballs until you are overwhelmed with conflicting tolerances? I'm starting a collection of conservative slippery-slope arguments and that one tops the list. Funny - i'm starting a collection of lefty straw-man fallacies and that will be near the top. In other words, i'm not drawing a slippery slope. There is no slope to slip down - this is a real and living thing right now in our world - not a prediction of future issues. But you're gith on one thing: we do seem to have conflicting tolerances don't we on this issue?

No, I think ad hom works very well in your case. I understand your game. I've seen it over and over. You claim you haven't seen examples of Muslims speaking against terrorism and violence, and therefore it must not be happening (because OF COURSE you're plugged in) It's anti-Muslim garbage, nothing less. There are many examples, but I will not go find them for you. I've played that game with Muslim haters before, and won't be played again. Now, let me guess your response. I won't provide the examples you demand because they aren't available. See, told you I've seen your anti-Muslim crap before. And yet you continue with ad hom. I await logic and facts.

I've done physical labour before, and have nothing against it, infact many of those guys earned my respect. But I definitely don't intend on moving out there to persue a career in physical labour, infact what I heard from the guys I worked with and I agreed was, "If you can avoid a career doing this type of thing do it!". With that in mind Fort Mac isn't out of the question if the right job comes up. After all as fellowtraveller so eloquently put it: In windsor a 3-bedroom in nicer area's will run slightly less (apx.$200k)...but a difference of $30-$40k doesn't seem to be bad in comparison to what I know about Toronto. Plus I'm not really a fan of Toronto, with its overly liberal/ndp core i'll probably end up getting myself lynched or something... (ex.me- "I don't believe in affirmative action in it's present form"....angry T.O. mob - "Go get the chains boys, we don't like this type in these parts!") ONTARIO is hilariously lame. its like mcdonalds - MUST be good because everyone is there. NOT! the fact is that there are lots of people in Ontario. hence LOTS of people TALK about Ontario. kind of like the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Raptors. Really bad teams with really good press. Where else in the wolrd could Tie Domi or Darcy Tucker be treated like a rock star? HAHAHA. Shrink the population by a few mil and Toronto is Kingston. Go somewhere GREAT like the lower mainland. MOUNTAINS, OCEANS, GOLF YEAR ROUND!!! YAAAA! you gotta get outta the cesspools of central canada and free your mind and spirit!!! BC BABY!!!

so i have a "hate on" for muslims? hardly. more to the point, muslims have a "hate on" for gay marriage, infidels, abortion, free speech and democracy. let's be accurate here.

no it's not - parlaiment was dissolved. no MPs so there can be no scandal.

wrong - exposition of the problem with tolerance thread

When I read comments like yours it makes me wonder if it's real ignorance or willfully done. Are you ignorant, or do you just dislike Muslims so you take pleasure in your dishonest slander? Just wondering. please. instead of attacking the person ad-hominem, i'd like to see examples of muslim clerics and "non-militant muslims" speaking out against islamic terrorism. if terrorism is not representative of "the msjority of muslims" - please show me documented examples of muslims speaking out against terrorism. stick to the facts.

You'll have to tell me where you found those people not blaming people of European descent. Just got up from a nice trip to the Land of Nod, did you? look around you. by common knowledge: IMPERIALIST AMERICA and its friend are to blame for terrorism...haven't you heard?