jefferiah

I mean I know you cant judge a book by its cover and all that, but look at that guy. His whole demeanor says "hello i am a big prick".

No will Quebec will demand the Cree land be part of their province but that Canada still put up the cash to care for the natives. Ignatieff is uglier than George Bush.

Why do you prefer that? Am I that offensive to you on the Board? Hey JBG I didnt realize you were American. I think Jdobbin meant that he realizes this behaviour is shameful and he is glad a lot of Americans dont care about Canada anyway. Like how I said that Canadian anti-Americanism is an embarrassment to me. No one finds you offensive.

The point is they wouldnt hold a ham dinner at an orthodox temple. Or I wouldnt go passing out pastrami at a Yoga ashram. And I wouldnt call the Catholic church bigots cuz they dont allow gay marriage to be held within. Homosexuality is against their religion. They dont kick homosexuals out of Church, but I dont think they should ever be forced into performing the rite of a marriage they dont condone, any more than an Orthodox Rabbis should be forced to condone un-kosher diet in his church. If you dont like it.....make a reform Church then.

Oh wait this is not the reform party is it? This is a reform Jewish congregation?

Lol thats outrageous. Thats pretty disrespectful. But I mean why did the rabbis allow this?

Seriously there are people who would call you a bigot for disagreeing with a minority stance on something. Its an easy card to play. By the same token, there is also real bigotry out there too.

I like this thread. I think there are two extremes here to be avoided. I have no problem with immigrants and all that, but I think its pretty ridiculous when a minority tries to change your country's rules and traditions because they are offended by them. Really I mean, the RCMP would not let me wear a sombrero if I demanded it. Or maybe they would if I had the right lawyers and presented myself as a victim of the cruel society which wont let me join the RCMP and wear my sombrero. I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it is ridiculous when a grade three student is suspended from school for having a paring knife in her lunch kit, while a Sikh teeanger can wear his dagger to school. I mean I certainly dont condone racism or anything like that....and I know that it exists today. But there are so many ridiculous cases of people abusing the system in the name of multiculturalism. You know I think sometimes people would rather concede to every minority demand just to avoid any chance of being called a bigot. Sometimes you have to stick up for the underdog, the minority, or the little guy, but it does not mean they are always right, and when they are not right it is not bigoted to say "wo there!.....MMmmmmm....If my daughter cant bring a paring knife to school, you think you can get in with that kirpan pal."

I am not saying it should be eliminated. If its good the viewers will keep it alive. But the CRTC doesnt care about what you or I want to watch. I may be wrong, but CTV is a private network isnt it. Corner Gas has terrible actors...(I watch it though) but I mean if its surviving on its own so be it. But why should all of Canada support these silly artsy choices CBC makes that no one wants to listen to anyway. Like a lot of stuff on CBC Radio is not on there cuz its popular or cuz it sells well with the regular viewer. And all these radio programs with cheap lifeless people trying to emulate intellectual beatnik talk, copycatting the prose and diction of Kerouac from the 50s......bah....I can do a cheap kerouac imitation too. Should your tax dollars pay for this?

Well I was not a supporter of the reform party. Still though, they didnt hold it at a Synagogue did they.

I think pretty much everyone here will verify that Americans have booed our anthem. You don't think that's true? So what. There are just as many Canadians ready to boo America at any given chance. Seriously, I live here in Canada too. I hear it all the time from other Canadians. I think its embarrassing personally. Its just automatically become a Canadian belief that Americans are all arrogant and we are so much more polite and when Americans travel they all put maple leafs on their luggage for extra good treatment overseas. Blah Blah. If I was American listening to all this crap, I might get a little peeved over Canada too. The worst example...although i know it was meant to be an exaggeration....was that show Due South. Constable Frasier was always being so polite to everyone while the American cop was brash, and Constable Frasier was smarter than all the American cops...blah blah....seriously Canada is getting pretty arrogant and superior in its own way.

oh yeah and theres george strombalopolous too....he seems like a nice enough fellow, but i dont know why we fund that program. and mitsou interviewing someone nobody knows or wants to know about

CBC sucks. Lots of tax dollars fund lots of programs no one wants to watch. CBC radio is worse. Where do they get these people on there? Trying to sound all smooth and artsy, talking about "so i procured a joint of marijuana, tee hee, which i proceeded to smoke and then i slipped into the recesses of my mind while John Coltrane blipped his cosmic signals through my mind".....really and 100 bucks says these people never smoked a joint in their lives....not that marijuana use is anything to brag about....but regular joe pothead would not listen to this crap anyway

There might be some truth that acting incites them, but 911 showed that reacting is not always the best policy either. Sending a cruse missle at an asprin factory as Clinton did sent a message of incompetence, and fear. If to object at a people's right to self preservation is not ANTI..., what else is it? This is a good point as well. The fact that people question internationally , or do not agree with Bush does not make them anti-American. From the leftists I cant stand the over use of the race, gender or whatever cards, and the neocons have their you hate America or Israel. However, I have seen a lot of rude Canadian comments toward Americans, that go beyond questioning American policies and are quite superior and pompous sounding, that it doesnt surprise me when Americans get a little pissed at us too.

Yes, I read the article, lose your condescending attitude smart *ss. Why would you think we believe that we are to blame for radical Islamic fanatics attacking and killing 3,000 of our civilians without warning or provocation? I think we were attacked b/c - We defend Israel's right to exist. - Islamic fundamentalists want to wage a jihad against those who are not Muslim. - Our culture is in contrast to much of what these fundamentalists believe in (we give women equal right, have many progressive ideas and cultural norms compared to these 12 century throw backs, we do business with many of their gvts that they dislike, etc). But mainly, I don't give a flying sh*t b/c none of the reasons justify sneak attacking us without warning on innocent civilians. For Canadians to say it OUR fault for being attacked is pathetic and speaks volumes about Canadians. Once again, Canadians prove that they are not our friends and will use almost any chance to try and rip us. Good point. I am a Canadian and I think it is condescending and insulting for a Canadian to tell an American its their fault. Agreed. I dont always agree with America on everything either. But that was pretty rude, and I think Canadians can be pretty rude to America. Its like people blaming Israel for defending itself. Move to northern Israel and tell me you dont support the attacks against Hezbollah. Even many Arabic Israelis in Northern Israel supported Israel.

Well I am a Canadian and I like being Canadian. I dont agree with Americans on everything, but sometimes I find Canadian anti-Americanism kind of embarrassing nowadays. I dont mean things like not supporting the American position on everything, or not supporting Bush either. But I mean I have talked in many American political chat rooms and I found the general attitude toward me at first as a Canadian was pretty sour. I thought wow, how mean of them...until I met some of the other Canadians who chatted in those rooms. Then I realized why they felt this way. You know it doesnt really offend me personally, but sometimes I get sick of the classic Canadian jokes about navy and our Canoes or people saying things like "oh you are canadian, eh"...Like I said its not offensive, but it does get old and harder to pretend to laugh at after a while. By the same token I think Americans get tired of the old story about all the people crossing customs into Canada with skis on the roofs of their cars...etc etc. And the whole thing about Canadians being so much more polite than Americans....pfft I am seeing a lot of the opposite nowadays, and even while this is happening the impolite Canadian offenders still flaunt the "we are more polite than you" stance. Polite is not a compliment when we say it about ourselves. Thats tooting your own horn. Canada has its own arrogance and its own brand of sickening "we are better". And the whole thing about Americans not knowing much about Canada...well I have talked to a lot of Americans who know quite a bit, and also....Canada is not well known internationally, anyway. We are a small country population wise and though we are one of the well off countries we are not a huge international force. Its like making fun of someone for knowing nothing about an opera written by an obscure albanian fence painter.

And he asserted when he was arrested that he was not leading any sort of political revolution. He told his followers they had to obey what the teachers of law taught, but not to be like them, for they were not really practicing what they preached. So he was not a revolutionary either. He was not a politician period.

Nah not an anatrchist either. Eludes your labelling once again. "Give to ceasar what is Ceasar's, right".

I just want to address why I feel it is wrong to label Jesus a socialist. I think Jesus should not be given any political label first off. I dont think he is a republican, conservative, a democrat, or a liberal. or a socialist, or what have you. I think he was very elusive to labelling in many ways. I think in many ways you have a point though. He and his followers did believe in sharing their possessions and all that. But I think there is a difference between central politically enforced kindness, and individual kindness. Jesus never passed legislation to enforce his views. Kindness that is enforced by law is no real kindness, though it is always necessary to some degree, that is true. But sharing and kindness on the individual level are true kindness. When we attempt to legislate kindness to the umpteenth degree, we end up with a lot of difficulties. HOw are things to be shared? Who decided who shares? Who decides who deserves most? Are the decisions fair? Also I think socialism in certain degrees can hamper individual talent and potential. In Canada we have a certain degree of socialism, and I think this is a big reason why our television shows suck. The popular choice is not allowed, not that the popular choice is always the best artistically. But I think that government subsidized art is government controlled art and stifled art.

Well, I'm not sure it's indicative of all Liberals, but it certainly is duplicitious. Wondering further on my point above, perhaps if Belinda had thrown the insult Peter's way the reaction wouldn't be silent, but rather, would be met with approving laughs, cheers of female empowerment, and calls of "you go girl!" The insult would have been met by the same faked outrage no matter what sex or party the sharp tounged idiot belonged to. As has been said before the only reason this story has any legs is because MacKay is too stuborn to apologize. If he had, nobody would be talking about it anymore. The fact that he is so stuborn definitely plays into the hands of Belinda though. She has been trying to rebuild her political image as a champion on women in politics. Pete's little outburst helped to hasten her makeover a smidge. you are right. McKay should have apologized. but it would not have changed the reaction. this is not a terrible thing in belinda's life. she is not all that offended. the liberals are glad to have this chance to exploit an insult and turn it into sexism. i dont think a man or women should be called a dog in politics or anywhere. That said everyone has thrown an insult here and there. I am sure he didnt mean anything about women in general by it. But I think the liberals love using it against him. But yeah after seeing how he refused to admit it, I lost alot of respect for McKay too. But turning it into a an all out attack on women is pretty petty. Especially all this analyzation of the word "dog". My goodness. People are really fishing arent they. And the thing is that they are not only using it against McKay, but against Conservatives in general. I think a truly honest and intelligent seeker of sexual equality would be more offended at Stronach than McKay.

well either way, as i said before, and i admitted i dont know for sure, and no one does either way. but genetic predisposition is not an OK. some people may more genetically predisposed to violence than others. i know you may say that violence is not the same as homosexuality. i know that. but all i am pointing out is that circumstances are not excuses.

I think the afore mentioned of example of women calling men "dogs" does not mean "you sly dawg you". So I really dont think dog is gender specific. Yet, lets say it is, for the skae of argument. How does a gender specific insult make a person a chauvinist? Lets say dog is only feasible as an insult when used with a woman. Sexism and chauvinism implies a biased view towards women in general. The fact that Peter McKay called Belinda Stronach a dog doesnt mean he views all women this way, and it doesnt mean all conservatives view women as less than men. Just because a term is gender specific doesnt make it sexist. Lets take "bitch" for example. I cant use it on a man. I know that. But women use it to describe other women all the time. Does this mean they are self-hating women? Of course not bitch is like saying naggy, unfair, woman. What difference does it make if it indicates a woman really. Cmon. I think people are fishing and over-analyzing the term dog a little too much to blow it up into something its not. Calling Belinda a dog doesnt mean he thinks women are dogs, or that it shows conservatives think badly of women. Think. Suppose he said "she is a worm". I suppose that would be wrong too. The proper thing to say would be "that person is a worm". Although I suppose if he did that the liberals would say he would be making a mockery of political correctness and is therefore double chauvinist.

I make no claim to be better than anyone who is gay. I myself have committed sexual sins. I have done a lot worse than looking at another woman lustfully too. The point is it is a sin. I am a sinner. I cant blame my hormones or my birth or my genetic dispositions. And actually yes there is a lot of evidence to suggest there is no gay gene. One example of evidentiary support for the gay gene is the fact that something like in 20 percent of cases where one identical twin is gay the other is also. But many people now interpret this as evidence against the fact, and leaning more toward the environmental influence, because DNA is identical in identical twins, therefore both twins should be gay in 100 percent of the cases. Either way I dont know. But genetic predisposition, as in alcoholism does not give license to binge drink.

Heterosexuality is the natural way of propagating the species.

Sure okay....mind you, adolescent blow jobs between consenting pairs can't be compare to violent crimes....heck, short changing the gardener is worse...... I agree totally. Its not as bad in my mind either. But what I am pointing out is that God forgives all sins not just "sexual misdemeanors". So the forgiveness does not mean the sin is ok does it. You made the point earlier that Jesus was forgiving to sinners. It doesnt mean he forgave only little sins and OK-ed them. He made the old standard even stricter, rather. When he says that to look at another woman lustfully is sin, he is certainly not softening his position on what is wrong. He made the law stricter but at the same time showed more mercy than the old standard.