sharkman

If you want some good jokes, I'm sure Dave and Leno will have it covered tonight.

I agree, Jerry you may not have noticed, but there are now 4 threads started by you (in the last week!) in this section, all on Global warming.

I don't know too much about the stuff, here's a link that says 20% of men over 40 have tried it. I would bet organizations that would like to see Rush fall from grace have been watching him like a hawk. This latest 'news' story is beyond silly. So the guy uses viagra. Big deal. He is also trying to be discrete about it so it wouldn't get blabbed all over the known universe. So they try to slime him with it. Liberals are sooo predictable.

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more. No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller. Denis Miller VS Ann Coulter?? I will put my money on Miller. Note: Dennis is mostly conservative, they would get along just fine.

Sure, I've wandered in various threads and I understand that this happens quite a bit. I never bothered to respond to the "studies" (put up by the Catholic Church to absolve themselves of their criminal activity during a child rape scandal) primarily because I felt doing so would only push the topic farther afield than it had already wandered (not because I don't find fault with them). I'd be more than happy to debate the findings if someone wants to start that thread elsewhere, but I think this thread has now already morphed into something it wasn't at the start. But let me ask you this then... Even if every word of those studies are true, is the point of posting them to justify not treating gay people equally or is it merely an exercise in character assassination of gay people? Seriously, answer the question. I think each individual's behaviour should be the determiner of their character, not what they are. That being said, the gay agenda is to combat every law or organization that they feel restricts or opposes them. A problem arises for some when it becomes obvious they can see no wrong within their ranks whatsoever. The Catholic church has been made to look at it's faults and it has made some huge steps. The Gay movement has not and refuses to consider any accusations as anything but homophobia.

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more. No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller.

No. It's a pedophilic organization, and a gay organization. It's men loving boys, not men loving girls. Believe what you will, but answer my question: what does any of this have to do with Somerville, SSM or civil unions? I really have no idea what the point of all this line of discussion is...? Is your point that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that all gay people are sick pedophiles? Or is it that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that it is a reason to deny an entire group's access to marriage or civil unions or that this has any bearing at all on the Ryerson issue? Nuthin'. Usually after the second page, threads tend to evolve. You've done some wandering yourself in other threads, haven't you? We've tackled the gay issue at large and I think both sides have scored points. For me the centerpiece was the post that found actual data on child molesters, gay vs straight. I feel this because no one could come up with opposing data, so they tried character assassination of the study instead.

Yes, this is a good thing, but all the MSM can do is whine about it. Well, they better keep it warmed up, they've got almost 2 more years of whining to do.

Newbie, I'm not sure we are allowed to double post. You also posted this link in the Stupid Global Warming Tricks thread, post 2. Good find, though, I'm surprised at Fox.

What's this, Macleans rebranding itself as a right of center publication? Has the world turned upside down? I've loathed that rag for too long to read it now just because they are trying to improve their readership numbers. Good Ann link, however. You just can't corner her, that Briitsh bloke may as well have been serving up softballs for her.

You may not be aware, but the Liberals had multiple billions earmarked for the military over the next decade or so as the Conservatives do. Our military has become a joke under the Liberals who authored budget cut after base closure during their time in power. We couldn't even fly our own soldiers to Afghanistan when they originally were sent, and they also didn't have proper uniforms (desert colours) so they stuck out nicely for the enemy snipers. I would give the Gov. 4.5 out of 5, Harper is really getting traction in Quebec.

It's sick, I know, but it's real. Here's a link that shows man boy love.

Do you include NASA as part of the 'regurgitating lemmings' crowd?http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ No, I thought it was obvious that I was referrig to those in my link.

No, we don't have to save ourselves. Mother earth will do that herself when she starts a cooling cycle in a few years. Of course the Global Warmers will try to take credit for it, I would be disappointed if they didn't. They'll just sit around watching old dvds of The Day After Tomorrow, crying during the scary parts and comforting each other until the next naturally occuring warm cycle starts up. Oh well, everyone needs their hobbies I guess.

Do you have credible data beyond your hypothetical "what ifs?" If there WERE such statistics, would that fear be irrational or not? It appears that you are only allowed to think suspicious thoughts if religious people are close to the children. Ah, strike that, most religions are okay except for the big C(christianity). You can express all kinds of doubts about that phobia free, but if you even look a a gay the wrong way (whatever that might be) you're a major 'phobe' who has serious fear and hate issues, depending on the accuser. Of course the truth is you'll never find much in the way of data on gay vs straight molesting, since then you'd be guilty of a phobia and you'd find your funding dry up.

Well, this summer the Global Warming fear mongers seem to be gettng rather schrill, so I thought this might put things in perspective. It's rather funny how determined young lemmings can regurgitate the Gore mantra without having the slightest idea what they are singing/shrieking/crying about.

There are some gay men who should not be allowed around young boys and there are some straight men who should not be allowed around young girls. Let's not condemn the whole human race on the acts of a few predators. I believe the percentage of straight men who would like to fool around with young girls is much lower than the percentage of gay men who would like to fool around with young boys. That statement doesn't mean I am scared of gays, it means I feel gay men shouldn't be around young boys in certain situations. Say, like in the showers. I also believe that with young girl clubs, men aren't in places of authority anyhow. No one's complained that their girl has not been supervised by a man as far as I've heard, and by the same token, young boys shouldn't be supervised by adults who may be sexually aroused by them. At any rate, the subject at hand is the Boy Scouts, there are no young girls there.

Reading this reminded me of a proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That too may have been why the lefts' first response was nothing, or assumed bad behaviour from CSIS and the RCMP. The left tends to believe the terrorist problem could be solved if only we could learn what has provoked them and then right the wrong that must have occured. The sympathy clouds the vision to such a point that when a terrorist bomb goes off the reaction is to assume that the terrorists are justified. At the base of this is a wrong assumption that they tend to conduct their lives as everyone else and are reasonal people at heart. So, if those accused as terrorists are reasonable people who've had some kind of monstrosity committed against them, where do you think that leaves the RCMP, CSIS, and Canadians that disagree with the Lefts' assessment? In the wrong, and that's why so little was coming from the left on this issue. They were waiting for 'all' of the facts, or that poriton they assumed would exonerate the bomb makers. It's the Right that needs to be resisted, not these poor misquided boys.

Hey, BHS, get a load of this killer guy. I wonder why he hates Ann so much. So, Liam, what's with you and the eating analogies? So far you've used Spoon feed, can I give you a spoon, perhaps this dish is more to your taste, and regurgitating intellectual poison. Are you on a diet or something? I suggest new analogies, sports is a topic just teaming with analogies!. Cause so far the food thing hasn't convinced me about much concerning the ACLU. I've googled them and I think they defend your brand of religion more than mine. But I have to allow that I'm surprised that they are defending any brand of religion whatsoever.

Sounds like a nasty disagreement gotten out of hand. To start throwing lawsuits around kind of tarnishes his image as clean in this matter. Maybe the church is not a democracy, I know mine ain't.

See Johnny, the thing is Harper hasn't done anything scary so far, and everyone has realized he's actually not scary after all, but kind of boring. The Liberals are highly concerned about this. So enter the new plan: make him into a pig gorging himself on the public trough. Pretty smart guys, these Liberals. Except, they themselves have been doing it for so long that they've lost all sense of judgement and think a mere hockey ticket is a good fight to pick. When they're on record spending over 50,000 on expense accounts for things like swanky restaurants and the like. Maybe in a year or two they'll come around. Personally I think instead of trying to demonize Harper the Boring One, they need to get a FRICKIN' LEADER!

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/27/1/ Rips that dumb article that's making the rounds. It just seems like the opposition to this movie is so...flimsy. All the more reason to be distrustful of this 'documentary'. They are doing a hatchet job on anyone who dares to disagree with it. Character assassination is pretty ironic coming from those who decry such things when it's done about Gore. Good news, another 'documentary' will be released soon on the CONSPIRACY that sounded the death knell of the eletric car. It's got a great, maybe even better than incon. truth, conspiracy theory to get the lefties' knickers in a twist. It was big business that done it. Oh wait, that's pretty much the same one, now isn't it...

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda. Well, Liam, it would be impossible to find a critical word from a left wing website now wouldn't it? If the right wing ones all find fault with the ACLU does that automatically mean they're all wrong? The link that started this thread was more than just an opinion piece and I automatically discount any thread you offer that has aclu.org in it's address. Go ahead and support them if you wish but don't assume I've eaten, what did you say, intellectual poison, just because I happen to find fault with them.

Pardon my weakness, but I can't help but notice you used a less than objective source(ACLU) after pointing out my such use. I'm sure they've got a handpicked catalog of such seemingly pro-religious freedom articles for their followers(not suggesting that you are one) to trot out. Nonetheless, the case I cited shows they are mighty choosey when it comes to the freedom of religion. It seems like splitting hairs to me, they defend the right of a kid to sing a Christian song in a public meeting, yet are against the forming of a Christian club that would meet in private. I know, I know, the devil's in the details!

I had no idea the number had gotten so high. 500? That's enough to take out an entire U.S. army, plus. I know it's not sexy, like say the number the MSM waited and waited for until they could breathlessly report on,("We now have 1000 casualities") but it is substantial.