YankAbroad

I wish they'd spend less time trying to tell us what shouldn't be taught in schools and more time matching what's taught in schools to ongoing career needs. . .

Of course you won't -- because the statistics you pull out of your arse are so much more reliable! Hehehe! It's a major problem for the victims groups. Of course, unlike you, I support all the victims, rather than calling the ones whose existence is politically inconvenient to hate speech liars -- as is your style.

You're the one arguing that most gays are pedophiles or pedophile supporters, and then you whinge about "diversion into smears and innuendo?" Oh, cry me a river Ms. Thang!

A dubious assertion (which, incidentally, doesn't pass the math if it's done on the statistics I've provided earlier). I suggest you either provide a link, or apologise. Dishonesty is tossing out phoney statistics in order to "prove" your effort to tar gays as pedophiles. The reason you produce fake statistics is because the real ones don't agree with your assertions. Just do the math with the VAASA statistics. What you're arguing is mathematically impossible. And your statements about the Catholic situation have already been blown out of the water, too. Oh well.

That's funny, and here I am saying there shouldn't be excuses made for any rapist. While you seem to think that opposite sex rape is OK -- even reasonable -- as long as it's men raping women. Curious. Good to see you're still making up statistics, though.

Of course you did, because you didn't read the article in question. It has unfavorable statistics, making your already curious argument deflate even further. 1/3 to 1/2 of victims being women (and more likely closer to the latter given the composition of the plaintiffs in the class action law suits) completely invalidates your claim. Incidentally, this quote was in the article I linked to -- the article you didn't bother to read.

Well, I guess backing away from the assertion you made and claiming you never made it is one way to handle the situation. You clearly said, twice, that: Of course, let's go back and look at the facts again (remember those?) You're fantastic at making up quotes, like your laughable 1% of the population is gay assertion. . . but rather poor at dealing with the actual facts. Of course, you're not interested in arguing the facts, you're interested in smearing gays as "pedophiles." I don't know whether to categorize your "contribution" as pathetic, or laughable. Perhaps both?

I'm just pointing out that your argument seems to be that marching in a pride parade means that those people are part and parcel of the "Gay Agenda," at least according to you. And you know about the motivations of "the gay community as a whole" through. . . what, exactly? I'm glad you're backpedalling from your inane assertions that "most child rape victims are male on male" and that the Catholic scandal was all about boys. . . if I were you, I'd run screaming from those foolish statements too.

I suppose if 20 years ago isn't "not so very long ago." Incidentally, the NYC police department, a number of investment banks, and Irish groups march in the NY Pride Parade too. So homosexuality is clearly an effort to advance police who are Irish investment bankers too. The connection is undeniable! That's not what the victims groups say. In fact, a majority of the victims of abuse were little girls or women at the time, and victims groups have been quite upset that the Church and right wingers like yourself have ignored and downplayed their suffering in order to advance an anti-gay agenda. See for yourself: http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/..._as_victims.htm http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/...ell_stories.htm

That's funny. Virginians Against Sexual Assault beg to differ: http://www.vaasa.org/vastats.html * One in three girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. Source: Diana Russell, Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, 1988 * Most sexual abuse is committed by men (90%), and by persons known to the child (70% to 90%), with family members constituting one- third to one-half of the perpetrators against girls, and 10% to 20% of the perpetrators against boys. Source: Finkelhor, "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1994 * Estimates suggest that males account for 25% to 35% of child sexual abuse victims. Source: Finkelhor, "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1994 Last time I checked, 25% to 35% was not "most." But don't let facts interrupt a good rant, carry on. . .

Lots of native women don't have the support of family or mosque if they leave a violent husband either. I'm sure, if this is an issue of concern for you, that you support charities like Rosie's Place and their outreach efforts to Muslim women -- as well as support strong divorce laws and law enforcement protections for victims of domestic abuse, regardless of gender?

So if you're a guy molesting young girls or a woman who molests young boys, you're straight? And since the vast majority of sexual abuse is opposite sex, we have to put limits on heterosexuality to ensure our children are safe, right?

So basically, Argus, your premise is that Syrian Canadian women are too stupid to fend for themselves, and need Big Mommy Government to "protect" them from their savage ways?

She's another "proud Canadian federalist" who spent years studying Chomsky but couldn't spend any time studying French, I'm afraid. So she'd not do too well.

What's "building a bridge between the past, present and future?" Sounds like something Bill Clinton would say. And I never cease to be astounded by the arguments of supposed "conservatives" that people would just stop having children altogether if it wasn't for a big government welfare program called "marriage" -- especially considering that over half of married couples don't have children living with them and alkmmost half of all children weren't born to legally married individuals.

I figure that one insulting and gratuitous insult deserves another. I have as much evidence as batty--ehrm, I mean betsy does. All I need now is a dose of righteous indignation and I can be in the "protect the children" outrage business too, and make spurious accusations against entire groups of people.

Well that silence is why we're rising up to confront you and your agenda of pedophilia, betsy. The children need us to fight for them against your ilk.

Goodness, I'd think that was a post from a Liberal Party member if I didn't know better.

If that. I know a Liberal Party gal who is all for Canada leaving NAFTA and joining the EU. That assumes that: 1) The EU would accept Canada -- which is doubtful; 2) That Canadians would want their income taxes to soar to pay for social benefits in Eastern Europe. Oh and BTW, if you think Canadian sovereignty is "under attack from the Americans," wait until Brussels gets done with Canadian sovereignty. You'll might as well shut down Ottawa and send the MPs home.

Hey, I've debated Chomsky years ago in Boston. He's a half-wit. Once he realizes he cannot play his word games with you, tar you as a neo-imperialist, or attack you for lacking nuance, he has a temper tantrum and declares you hopelessly lacking in the superior wisdom necessary in order to understand the truth. He ended up attacking me for my "age and lack of experience" (I was in my mid 20s at the time). What a dufus.

That's too radical, tml. After all, I know best about how you should live your life. And you don't deserve things like tax benefits and immigration unless you're living a life which I believe is moral. That's what democracy is all about. Hey, wait a minute, what do you mean I'm immoral too?!? This is outrageous! I have rights!

Oh sure. But we can pull out of Afghanistan. And there's no way a Canadian alliance with the EU would give it the breadth and depth of market access that Canada has now in the USA. Don't be foolish -- constant isolation of the United States isn't good for Canada. Most American foreign policy has had huge benefits for Canada (even if Canadians don't realize it) because it strengthens the market where the vast majority of Canadian goods and services are sold. Yep, and laying the groundwork now will help things later after Bush leaves office in just under three years' time.

I agree, and it's why we gays fight that agenda so hard. Note that Betsy cannot produce a single article which proves she and her Right Wing Agenda isn't pushing pedophilia. Very interesting!

I think Betsy and the Right Wing Rights agenda is pushing pedophilia -- it's pretty obvious from that article.

Can someone show me where the charter permits discrimination based on gender?