jefferiah

If we all grow moustaches and parlez vous and drink wine and eat cheese all day, we still wont be accomadating enough for Quebec.

Classical Liberal a la Von Mises, figleaf?

I think Christian right is a very misleading term sometimes. For example the right is not Christian. Many Christians are "right" to varying degrees. Some of them are quite extreme Right. But the Right is the right, whether you are Christian or not. I know very many right-winged people who are atheists.

Figleaf I apologize for that comment. I know that was quite a generalization on my part. I am sorry for that I should have thought before that, however I do find that many leftists use this approach to logic, labelling the conservatives in our country as war mongering, religious right, etc etc....I think Canada is a very liberal country overall, even with the Tory's in power, and I really dont get these complaints about how unfair the Tory's are. I am sick of people complaining about this. The other day on the news I saw a Muslim girl complaining that Franklin Graham was invited to speak in Winnipeg soon, and that Canada has a double standard because they would not allow a very controversial Muslim to come speak (one who made comments about Jews and and in support of Jihad). I dont understand why a grade three student gets kicked out of school for bringing a paring knife in her lunch kit, while a Sikh teenager can wear a kirpan (dagger) to school. Nothing against Sikhs. But Canada has a push-over government. Even more so with liberals in power. If you have to check your religion and your prayers at the door when you go to school, I am sure a Sikh can check his kirpan.

Once again, though, the point I am making is that society has a way of being so paranoid about things like sexism and racism that when one person who happens to be a member of a certain group is insulted people automatically label it sexism or racism. Peter Mckay's calling Stronach a dog in the workplace is not sexist. People insult each other in politics all the time. He did not insinuate women are dogs. Think about it. Does this mean that from now on if you want to insult someone or even criticize someone you had better make sure they are of the same race and gender as you, just in case someone thinks you have it out for all the other members of that race or gender.

Well I think everyone has gotten a little off topic here. Men and women are definitely equal. All I am saying is that the liberals have jumped all over the dog comment to make it look as if Peter McKay and all conservatives think women are less than equal. It doesnt matter if Belinda Stronach is worthy of being called a dog. Peter Mckay obviously doesnt like her, and insults are common place in politics anyway. But i think it is more slanderous of the liberals to libel the whole conservative party as being against women because someone called Miss Stronach a dog. It doesnt mean he thinks all women are dogs. An angry female reporter confronted Mckay and said something to the effect of "I am not a dog!" Did Peter McKay call the reporter a dog? I have nothing wrong with women wanting equality, what gets me is when women see chauvinism everywhere. I think Belinda Stronach and her cronies are intelligent enough to understand what I am saying, and know that it is true, and that they are using this whole thing as a smear.

The term Jerk is used mostly exclusively for males. I have never heard someone call a girl a "Jerk". But when a woman uses the demeaning term "Jerk" to describe a man, no one says it's sexist. Because calling a man a jerk does not mean you are calling all men jerks, or generalizing about men, right. Same with dog. Even though the insult may apply to women only, Drea, it doesnt make it sexist.

The term dog may be demeaning, but he meant it toward Belinda Stronach. If it wasnt insulting it would not be a very effective insult would it. But because it applies to a woman, does not mean he meant it for all women. He meant it for her. Its not demeaning to women. It's demeaning to Stronach. That't it, that's all. Do you really think he meant to say "Belinda Stronach as the divine representative of all feminity is a dog therefore all women are dogs and should not be in politics." Give me a break. He doesnt like Stronach. Alot of people dont.

Why? Did Belinda screw a bunch of men? Was it reported in the news? Does your wife know Miss Stronach personally? Or was she simply parroting YOUR views? She wants to be a good li' wife afterall, and you gotta be a big strong leader kinda guy Hmmmmmm.... This is just another example of the same kind of thing Drea. B. Max says his wife called her a slut and automatically you assume B. Max is a dominating husband and she is saying this as a submissive wife. This is what I cant stand about liberals. They turn everything and everyone who disagrees with them into "a bible-thumping nazi, women hating fascist." Its ridiculous!

I certainly think Peter Mckay should have watched his tongue about Stronach. Calling her a dog is not good PR for the Conservatives. But I also think the liberal reaction was sort of out of this world. And its things like this that make me leary about supporting liberals. Somehow calling Belinda Stronach a dog became the ultimate sexist remark in the liberals minds. It was even equated with "discouraging women from entering politics in the future". Something of that nature. McKay called Stronach a dog, not all women. As far as I know, there are alot of people who don't like Stronach out there, and most of them are not her ex-boyfriend. I think the luberals should stick to the real reason for demanding an apology. Belinda Stronach was offended by being called a dog, not all women. How does this really relate to all women? And when the media gave a little attention to her affair with Tie Domi (and it wasnt all that much really), which you have to expect since she is a public figure, she said that was sexism too. Isn't that a little bit ridiculous?