grainfedprairieboy

OK, give me a single example of a Conservative ideological victory where it became illegal to protest following their win and subsequent legislative change. pas de touche in advance.

I was paraphrasing but I shouldn't have but words in your mouth so I detract that part of the statement and apologise. You said: "wealthy elites (mostly males) were able to trick us into this whole idea of a "service based economy"" I can't seriously debate your position because from your perspective you believe it was deliberately orchestrated and that is too much humus to shovel through before we can debate it actually being the cause and effect. I'm with the feminists in that men aren't worth much and the oversexualisation of women is degrading and devaluing to young girls. Too bad there are no girls here to weigh in on the quality of men in today's society. Instead I've got a bunch of the guys who are likely the problem themselves saying there is actually no problem or if there is it's the fault of ipods and pizza pops and jobs they have to work to get instead be handed on a platter. At least I'm breaking it down. Tell me exactly in one sentence how a service based economy makes a 30 yr old man genuinely ill when Battlestar Galactica was cancelled?

What the world doesn't need is more countries with nuclear weapons or any types of weapons of mass destruction. We need to ban the research and production of such things and not base their acceptability on whom is doing the stockpiling. Every country could use them for that matter. Hey, remember when the Spanish were fishing our territorial waters years ago? Instead of warships and bow shots we could've saved a great deal of effort and threatened to nuke them. So if I agree with you and evil western political and corporate interests created these dictators then I should have to suck it up that they deserve nukes? I really disagree with your thinking here.

Oh...OK,....I see how this works with you; then by golly I must object to Iran having nukes because they are all hairy hook-nosed, uni-browed dune coons who either come here and steal all our cashier and janitorial jobs then wear garish jewelry and beat our good white women or stay in Iran where 75% are terrorists and the other 25% are girls married off and covered before puberty. If I wasn't such a sheeple and actually looked at the evidence I would see how Bush and his people pulled off 9/11 and blamed it on the muslims and that Amerikkka is a puppet of the Jew and the real enemy of world peace.

If not for the feminisation of men through the schools, civic organisations and single mothers, which do you then believe most accurately describes the plethora of 35 yr old uneducated males living in their parents homes today?: A. He is a product of economics and technology; B. It is only a perception of modern men and doesn't exist in reality; C. There was the same number of men or even more in the past but it just wasn't talked about. I'm not talking about physical strength. I'm talking about internal strength. I'm talking about discipline, honour and respect for community, country and family. I believe that men are more competitive by genetics. Even the ones beaten down by a school system where no one fails and everybody gets a ribbon still feel the stirring within and want to rise to the challenge and the internet affords it for them. Hence the predominance of males on political forums. So tell me why I am wrong.

Every law by nature violates someones individual right. That is what laws do. They govern, steer or otherwise control your existence and when you violate them your liberties are further denied. It is a vicious circle. And what you perceive as nonsense I see as perfect sense. No law is absolute and will always evolve as does society. I think it is the absolute height of arrogance that anyone would think their current morals and ethics are the absolute pinnacle of evolution and should somehow be enshrined forever. I understand fully that what is right today is wrong tomorrow and our laws must reflect the will of the people at the moment. Fill me in. Tell me all about yourself. I genuinely like to know who people are and what makes them think the way they do. You miss my point. Some people who advocate a certain position believe that once their goal has been achieved any further discussion is unacceptable. Abortion or SSM are two easy examples.

Um......it was sarcasm, reread your original rebuttal. I don't like any country possessing nuclear weapons so the addition of each new country to the nuclear club is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. If we as a species are ever going to evolve beyond our capabilities to destroy ourselves we need to draw a line in the sand and say no more. That Iran is probably one of the top three states that if they possessed nuclear weapons would use them to advance the agenda of Allah. That while the classic M.A.D. may prevent nuclear war with everyone else, it is a whole different ball game when the button pusher thinks he is fulfilling the wish of his god and will be eternally rewarded and the obliteration of his own nation is seen as god's will. As such, I strongly oppose any new member of the nuclear club, including Canada, and especially oppose their possession by any theocratic state. When it comes to theocratic states, I believe that conventional warfare is justified in preventing their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Any student of military history will tell you that if you boil it down weaponry and quantity or even quality does not win wars - wealth wins wars. Ghandi and his Satyagraha was a force of such might it bought Indian independence whereas no amount of guns or diplomacy could. Right or wrong, the will of every person over another, of every state or nation or culture over another is based on might. Would you speed in front of a traffic cop if you were in a hurry? No? Then might makes right because he is controlling you through the authority vested in him. Here is part of your problem. You (liberals in general) feel that they should be able to argue in favour of anything until such time as they have "won" then all debate is supposed to stop. But in any democratic society where culture is virtually determined, if not defined through government legislation and interference then there can be no "binding" referendum but rather little more then respect for the sentiment of the public at the moment.

So why do women outnumber men virtually 2:1 in university? Are you trying to blame the whole thing on the Hamlet Syndrome? (what it was called in the 80s when these type of men first started to appear). Why is that women are now more likely to leave home as young adults with their own apartment and car and wind up dating some drone still living off his parents and weraing baggy pants at 20? And yes Canadian men are wimps. Or at least the predominately suburban ones seem to be. And though you may not see yourself or peers that way, I think many women sure do (men in general). And while I appreciate your point that media and consumerism are a significant factor in shaping our society, I don`t see it as driving factor but more of a mirror. I think the future role of men in Canadian society are something that women will ultimately decide. Like Muslims in France, they are the future of this country and gals in my peer group are not overly impressed with the quality of men today and I hear far more from them that which I've precisely articulated to you. But I do live in a bubble as well. But answer me this: why is there such a disproportionate number of men in this forum?

You just blamed part of the problem as being a deliberate conspiracy of old white industrialists and you want me to dignify that?

If not for a female oriented educational system how else do you explain the creation of the moder Canadian male? I would really like to hear your hypothesis for why male performance socially and academically degrades in perfect correspondence to the feminisation of the educational system over the past 40 years.

That's because some guy in a goatee or a woman in comfortable shoes taught you otherwise and I will never convince you that your current moral and ethical beliefs are little more then a passing fancy in the grand scheme of things and are in no way some barometer of how things should be. There is only one constant in human history and that is might makes right and might always comes in the form of a majority either electing it or tolerating it. You can suppress any people or any idea for only so long before it takes over.

Of course, that's what Liberals and Dippers call absolutely any elected government they don't control.

Yes but how do you feel about my position?

Right now I am having a bit of trouble getting past the above statement. Are you sure it wasn't the Jews?

You chastise me and accuse me of taking your words out of context then say the above all in the same post. Wow. How can you be so arrogant as to think that the will of the majority is only valid so long as their decision coexists with your personal interpretation of right and wrong? And that is precisely what you are implying. Ethical and moral beliefs in society ebb and flow with the centuries. What remains a constant is some men believing they should be allowed to control or influence others and as such they seek power like dictators, or defend and promote religion like priests and religious fanatics or subscribe to a political ideology and promote it without thinking like yourself. There is simply no real justification for your ideology and for every example you can dredge up of an injustice a majority ever visited upon a minority, I could up you tenfold with injustices levied by a fanatical minority on a majority.

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

I'm saying this with the utmost respect and nonflaming intent that I can muster: Then you'd deserve what you get.

I have the answer for you guys:

Dictatorship of the majority. Yup. And in your world you can logically trespass with a permit, receive customer service from Air Canada and of course; elect a King. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. I can just feel your contempt for the very concept. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. 10s of thousands of Canadians are buried in Europe over two world wars and willingly risked their young lives for what you despise. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. Dictatorship of the majority. If you say it enough times for me though, it is like music.

The rivalry lives on.

Only a Liberal would argue that a benevolent left wing dictator is better then the wishes of a collective but conservative democratic population. Don't you ever tire of the end's justify the means regardless of how unethical it may be? True to the spirit of Reform I support referendum, citizens initiatives, MP recall and anything else that directly involves the citizenry in determining their collective political direction. Electing some self serving thud who feels it is their turn at the trough and then mindlessly letting that MP be whipped carte blanche at the discretion of the party leader is probably the reason we average 40% voter turnout.

My wife and our girlfriends are fine with our sex life.

Years ago all the way back to the 1960s, the lefties of their day wanted to address what they perceived as an educational inequity between males and females. The prevailing wisdom of the day concluded that it wasn't females that weren't smart, it was that darn regimented educational system with it's adherence to results, it's corporal punishment, it's reward for success and punishment for failure, it's take it out back mentality that appealed to a structure boys naturally excel in and girls struggle with. As such, the education system was completely overhauled and where little Suzie was once chastised for not being as competitive and progressive and a go-getter like little Johnny, a generation later little Johnny was being scolded for an inability to sit still and pay attention like little Suzie does. And it is not just in education where we have devalued what makes boys....well, men. If you look at girl's civic groups such as Sparks, Brownies & Girl Guides they are 100% operated by women and allow only female members. However, compared against Beavers, Cubs and Scouts, these groups must all allow girls within their ranks and are very much operated by the mothers of the boys. Hell, even the word `boy` is no longer permitted with the phrase Scout either on paper in speech. And this has extended to sports teams where a boy may not compete with girls but a girl must be accommodated if she wishes to compete against boys. Thanks to social services women don't particularly need a man to raise a family anymore and men don't really feel any particular responsibility to be providers. They know they are little more then sperm donors and the justice system reinforces this by treating male vs female cases like an 19th century Southern US court would've treated black vs white. So the women are now the teachers of boys, they are the leaders of boys, they are the mentors of an entire generation of males half of whom who grew up perpetually drugged to make them sit still like a girl and are so content to be feminised they don't even bother to get a drivers license. Throw in the cadre of single moms who are also the defacto fathers and is it any wonder we have the modern uneducated, unmotivated, under employed mid 30 year old still dwelling in his parent's basement who prefers internet pornography to women and occasionally strokes himself while holding the homoerotic Big Jim doll of his youth with his other hand? Is it any wonder when Marc Lepine walked into that classroom fully armed and then ordered all the males to leave they just dutifully walked out? They don't see themselves as the protector of women. They actually see themselves essentially as women. It is how they were raised. Can you imagine a bunch of men from the 1960s on down who would just walk away from a desperate situation and let the girl's fend for themselves or a society that wouldn't have mocked them forever for having done so? Now boys are seemingly broken into two groups; the 99% who are cowardly pussies and the 1% who are psychotic sociopaths. Those fellows who do stick around are happy to have their wives assume the role of their mother, bread winner and sex toy while they play video games and she cares for the children and house. Clearly the female focused system is not working, at least for the lovelorn gals and military, police and fire recruiters, and to the credit of the modern woman, the one who is now for the most part raising boys on her own - some of these women are at least recognising the legal, cultural and ethical issues and trying to re institute masculinity in society for the benefit of both their sons and daughters. I was recently at a Beavers meeting where the women leaders commanded the boys to a level befit of any military platoon vs the Sparks group next door which was as lackadaisical as any modern film studies class taught by the most tenured drug addicted hippy at the most liberal of universities. So maybe our collective future hope for raising men we can be proud of rests with the modern woman? Your thoughts? My link

No I don`t. There is no ruling. A piece of Toronto Star yellow journalism evolved into a hypothetical debate surrounding the merits of removing all current legal obstacles to prostitution. Further, when it comes to changing laws it is generally the responsibility of the advocator to `prove` the assertions as the status quo is already self evident.