betsy

Easy to see that you never had to fight for "pay eqity" for your staff. They still threaten one in Canada for standing up for their rights especially women. Can you give a specific case or example? I am curious and also confused about what you're referring to.

Well, as long as they aren't breaking any law, I guess it's still a free country. Our ears just perked up only because we saw those key words that the lefties consider not politically correct...we can't just jump to conclusion based on those alone. Some imams are doing the same kind of thing in their congregation, and yet no one seems to mind.

Some countries are peopled by nationalists proud of their own. Perhaps trying to convince these nations to follow our lead and example will be misconstrued as a terrible insult....implying that their system and way of life is inferior to ours. After all, the west is seen and regarded as the "evil that corrupts."

As you've said, NATO soldiers are all viewed the same as the western infidel dogs to be shown no mercy. There is nothing wrong in trying to win the hearts and minds of the locals.....and I'm sure Canadian soldiers respect the culture and religion of the people. But we have our own culture here that ought to be respected too...or at least understood, by those who had chosen to live in this land. That is the very root of the problem in Europe I think, and some other parts of the world....that muslims who had chosen to live in western worlds expect and demand that those countries dent their own culture, to the point of tampering with rights and freedom....just so to accomodate a religion. The common sense that ought to prevail is for everyone to remember and understand that we all live here in a WESTERN country, with its own western culture and a democratic society.

That was not the question, Are you willing to put your life in danger because of a cartoon. But this is not just about cartoons. I spoke out and showed my support for the Western Standard, didn't I?

Making a stand and fighting does not always mean carrying a gun. Sometimes, the pen is mightier than the sword. Whether we say anything or not does not matter. You could be anywhere and be blown up by suicide bombers. Just because it hasn't happened yet in Canada does not mean it won't. Appeasing will not guarantee your safety...no matter where you are. Of course like you, I am scared too. We are human after all. But there's no point in trying to show that you are their buddy, quelling a dignified stance in the face of their aggressive intimidation....with the hope that later it will be reason enough for them to spare you. Look at that poor woman from CARE who devoted most of her life helping and living among them. She even married one of them. her husband pleaded for her. Did it make any difference?

Right here....cheering for Bush!

Are you trying to direct this topic towards EGALE again? What about EGALE??? I was talking about real cock-fights. I mean, roosters!

Yes lets talk about reprisals for a minute. If we had used our common sense and shown alittle respect in the first place there would not have been any need for "reprisals" would there. Please refresh my memory. What respect for what are you referring here?

What is it your trying to say we should broaden the WAR on terrorism, to include all muslims, better yet why not include all those that do not see the world as we do. Taking note of all the sample incidents happening all over the world, unfortunately, the innocent moderate Muslims are getting dragged in and getting victimized. The re-printing of cartoons is just superficial considering the underlying reasons why the world is reacting this way. Encouraging and supporting a group bent on destruction and atrocities....and suppressing the other from voicing and venting their outrage can only lead to a more volatile climate. Both sides are being incited and provoked by the liberal-minded group claiming to be for peace. Isn't it ironic? Kinda remind me of cock-fighting. A lot of stroking and smoke-blowing.

If you're male....and happen to be white, you'll have a tougher time getting good employment. It doesn't matter whether you're qualified for the job and have a good amount of experience. You still lose out to someone who hardly qualifies simply because of your gender and the color of your skin.

I don't know much about this group. But so far, they're just having their meeting...what's wrong about that? It is still legal in the USA, right? Again, there is something in the air right now that's got people (not only in the US) all over the world to stand up and BLATANTLY speak out or worse. It is a form of rebellion. The ones responsible for this kind of spreading reaction are the mentality and attitude that stand behind and enforcing that "political correctness" and those who seek to suppress any opposing views or concerns (on practically everything), demanding "Tolerance" must mean "Total Acceptance." Ironically, this kind of climate makes it easy for any radicals, including supremacists to exploit the situation. They have some reasons to prove they've been "right all along." The appeasers and and bleeding-hearts-do-gooders who seek to "unite" all and remove barriers, in their zealous effort to meddle and dictate, had only succeeded in widening the gap....and making radical groups and idealogy more attractive. In multiculturalism, individual cultures and identities are protected, and encouraged to flourish. The whites ought to enjoy that same right and privilege.

Just for the record. I have posted those types of incidents....not because I condone them. My point is to show that people all over the world are starting to deal with situations in various means. Some respond by outright provocation, while others by making a stand...blatantly going against what is being demanded of them. Others retaliate in violence. People are frustrated and exasperated. They are angry. If I am labelled as someone who had swung to the far end...just for believing and saying that the Western Standard had done nothing wrong, then so be it. I am not going to apologize for it nor am I going to be ashamed of it.

Those who continue to bury their heads in the sand, refusing to see that there's more to these re-printing of cartoons than meets the eye....here's another case showing how the world is turning. http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/01/pork_soup_leave.php It is sad that we've come to this point. But this is the result of political-correctness gone mad. Appeasers, apologists, bleeding-hearts-do-gooders who, in their naivete or whatever, actually do more harm in stirring the pot. You gotta let the steam come out...otherwise, it'll blow. We're lucky that the likes of Western Standard had in a way offered the relief of letting a few steam out. Tolerance can only go so far. And when one reaches that breaking point, boy....the pendulum swings to the far end!

Well, the comparison I could think of would be that of a whiney, attention-grabbing, bratty child and a clueless adult. As usual, the child was going to use a little accident to get the attention of this adult. The adult clearly saw what happened....nothing serious...could hardly even call it an accident. The bratty child came sniffling, holding up a healthy-looking finger to the adult. "Owww!" he started to whine. In an equally whiney sing-song way, the adult asked, "Little booooopy, what's wroooong?" The sniffling turned into a plaintive, "waaaaaah". "Oh Boooooopy, what happened?" The adult even got a very anxious look, the empathy is there! "WAAAAAAH", was the answer, tears streaming down now in full force. "My pooor baby......poor Booooopy..." the adult cooed to the child. 'WAAAAAAAAAAH" So after a lot of hugging and nose-blowing, the adult picked up Boopy and took him to the sandbox. "What do you want to play with, Boopy?" Boopy, with hiccups, pointed to a little red truck that Fred has with his left hand. "Fred dear, will you please share and give the red truck to Boopy?" "But I got it first" complained Fred. 'I want it." Boopy started to whine again. "Oh c'mon now Fred, you've got two...it won't hurt to give him one. Besides you're older than him." "No, I'm using it." Fred was adamant. "Fred! You're not being nice you know. You've got to get along with others. Now, give that red one to Boopy!" In frustrated anger, Fred grudgingly threw the red truck to Boopy, and stomped off to play somewhere else. The adult picked up the truck and handed it to bratty Boopy. "Here you go Boopy, all you need to do is ask nicely."

Well, the comparison I could think of would be that of a whiney, attention-grabbing, bratty child and a clueless adult. As usual, the child was going to use a little accident to get the attention of this adult. The adult clearly saw what happened....nothing serious...could hardly even call it an accident. The bratty child came sniffling, holding up a healthy-looking finger to the adult. "Owww!" he started to whine. In an equally whiney sing-song way, the adult asked, "Little booooopy, what's wroooong?" The sniffling turned into a plaintive, "waaaaaah". "Oh Boooooopy, what happened?" The adult even got a very anxious look, the empathy is there! "WAAAAAAH", was the answer, tears streaming down now in full force. "My pooor baby......poor Booooopy..." the adult cooed to the child. 'WAAAAAAAAAAH"

I don't think so. Printing cartoons had offended, but after a few protests, it would've died down. It is the display of sympathy from those who are non-muslims that enboldens and inspires the radicals. What better way than to cause "dissension" among their perceived enemies. You guys are falling for it.

I'm assuming your talking about Canadain christians and not the christians mention in the Below link. My Webpage So when this is all over ,and said and done they are going to be sitting down trying to figure out just all this got started. and recorded in history it will read that the begining of this conflict was started with the printing of a cartoon. yes ladies and gentlemen a cartoon. And The survivors will be sitting on top of a pile of dead buddies saying we showed them bastards did'nt we. Them muslim dinks, what a bunch of cry babies. burn my church down will ya. And we will be shouting from the roof tops, Martha grab me my shotgun were going hunting. It's ironic that the news you've pointed out above is about reprisal. Some of us here have been saying that there's more to this than just mere re-printing of cartoons. This is about "making a stand." For some, it is about "pushing back." If you hadn't noticed, the world is slowly responding...in various ways...to threats and intimidations and downright terrorism. Here's another example from another part of the world. "Katmandu erupts in violence after murder of 12 hostages in IraqScotsman.com News ^ | 9/2/04 | THOMAS BELL Posted on 09/02/2004 9:21:32 AM PDT by TexKat VIOLENCE erupted across the Nepalese capital Katmandu yesterday in response to the killing on Tuesday of 12 Nepalese workers who had been kidnapped in Iraq. Angry mobs attacked Muslims and overseas recruitment agencies, blaming them for the murders. Shots were fired by guards at the Egyptian embassy when a mob attacked the building. Mosques were also targeted. " http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205757/posts --------------------- Would it not be better if you and other supporters stop boosting the morale of these violent protesters and terrorists by your public display of sympathy and cries for appeasement? Your display only enboldens and encourages these radicals all the more.

Information is always being filtered. That's the job of an editor. I could call a press conference after taking a dump, but that doesn't mean it's going to be front page news. You said yourself that you like the media filtering out images you don't want to see--even newsworthy items like Abu Gharib photos. So what's wrong with a news editor deciding these cartoons are beyond the pale and deciding not to print them, just as he decides not to print a hundred other items every day? I never said I wanted the media filtering out images I don't want to see. True I found it offensive that a porno-stuff material suddenly materialized on the front page of a national newspaper...it caught me by surprise. But like I said, readers will deal with stuffs like that in their own way. My way was to avoid that newspaper and not re-new our subscription. You ask: "So what's wrong with a news editor deciding these cartoons are beyond the pale and deciding not to print them, just as he decides not to print a hundred other items every day?" There's nothing wrong with that....exactly the same as there's nothing wrong with the news editor who decides to print them.

You don't see it as big sacrifice since you admit that you prefer information to be filtered for you....to have somebody make the judgement call for you. But not everybody wants it the way you do.

I'm assuming your talking about Canadain christians and not the christians mention in the Below link. My Webpage So when this is all over ,and said and done they are going to be sitting down trying to figure out just all this got started. and recorded in history it will read that the begining of this conflict was started with the printing of a cartoon. yes ladies and gentlemen a cartoon. And The survivors will be sitting on top of a pile of dead buddies saying we showed them bastards did'nt we. Them muslim dinks, what a bunch of cry babies. burn my church down will ya. And we will be shouting from the roof tops, Martha grab me my shotgun were going hunting. Bodies pile up after Nigeria riot Police have struggled to keep a lid on the violence The city of Onitsha in south-eastern Nigeria is calm after two days of anti-Muslim riots left many dead. Nigerian human rights workers say they have counted 80 bodies following two days of reprisal attacks by crowds of Christians armed with machetes. They went on the rampage after the killing of more than 30 Christians in riots in two mainly Muslim towns in northern Nigeria at the weekend. --------------------- Religious skirmishes had been happening all over the world. And with Africa, mass killings are unfortunately too common now. It doesn't take much for the machetes to strike. It is part of their culture! I don't think this amount to much in our argument, although it actually does support some of our comments...but since you've brought this up, let me just direct you to that word, "reprisal."

I'm beginning to think that there's no use trying to help these countries attain democracy. They don't want the kind of democracy we enjoy in the west...the few who do won't be able to change this unless they do something about it themselves. Maybe US ought to pull out asap...and just protect their interest from afar (that includes protecting Israel). Right now I'm either frustrated or angry....that my frame of mind is on the notion that if any of these barbaric countries ever ATTEMPT to hit any other civilized countries...then USA should just do us all a favor and do what has to be done.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"? But that's it, isn't it? No christians ever protested burning a Canadian or any flag and became violent at the sight of things they considered immoral...not even during circumstances where insults and ridicule were directed at our God. You don't see thousands marching and shouting in anger, threatening about bloodshed! Whereas the most important issue you are purposefully ignoring is the fact that these radical violent protesters marching now have continually shown that they do practice what they preach....I guess those beheadings, fatwas and suicide bombings do not count? Why are you ignoring those facts?

What? Photos are gonna jump out and bite you? You're saying people should only be concerned with what offends you and nobody else? Well I don't get it what you're really on about. I'm answering to the question you put if we want Abu Gharib butt photos....and I say, you cannot compare the two. First of all, one is real-life photo and the other one is a cartoon. Ssecond the cartoons are meant to be satirical. Even though it is irrelevant, should the Abu Gharib torture scene as the one you described above be lampooned as a cartoon...who do you think will be more offended, insulted and ridiculed? The reader or the one being shown with the pear? If it does appears as an editorial cartoon, it will only support my stance that editorial cartoons and comments foster a wide discussion and various angles to be explored. You could see it now during coffee break at a staff room. One points at the Abu Gharib cartoon to co-workers but there will be various interpretations and reactions toward it. Some would look at it as a satirical criticism showing disapproval of torture methods, others may think "oh well, they deserve what they get" ...another will shake his head in disbelief, "But that's just cartoon! It's an exageration!"...while another will say, "Oh they shouldn't print this kind of trash! I don't wanna see a pear being used that way!" And they start debating! One will most assuredly launch an attack on Bush! So there you go. A discussion going...the editorial cartoon did what it's supposed to do!

Okay, Abu Gharib is news. Do you want more bananas in prisoner's butts on the front page? (Actually updated reports say it might have been a pear.) What it comes down to, once again, is the fact that your only reason for wanting to see the cartoons printed is because you equate all muslims with suicide bombers or radical danish-flagburners, and want to instigate a fight with them. Once again, I'm equating that position with the position of those radicals (not the actions, the position): y'all just want to start a good ol' war. But these are cartoons...not real photos! Every editorial cartoons as far as I can remember are poking fun at serious issues or particular people, which can be insulting and offensive to the person being satired. They are satiricial.