PocketRocket

Often I feel the same way. We have reached what is probably the first point in history where the majority IS the minority in practise. In Canada today, being a white anglo Christian male kicks you quite firmly OUT of the driver's seat. Not Francophone??? No government job for you !!!! (Bilingual is now often not good enough, need to be of franco origin) White??? You pay ALL the taxes, get nearly NONE of the benefits, definitely no benefits for any "cultural" endeavours. I guess my "culture" is not as valid as French or Native "culture". The list goes on and on.

Okay. I'm probably gonna get flamed for at least part of this, but so be it. America is a truly great nation. Possibly the greatest nation history has seen up until now. But that doesn't mean we like to listen to America telling us how much better she is than all the rest of us, no more than anyone likes the high-school football jock who snubs all of his "lesser" classmates. Definitely the strongest nation ever. Definitely the richest nation ever. But to me, and to many others, this economic and military strength does not equate to moral high ground, which has been claimed by the USA, and by her current leader. The ongoing blathering jingoism, the recurring "USA,USA" chanting, the self-congratulatory attitudes, the claims of carrying out God's work, etc etc..... It almost sounds like someone trying to overcome an inferiority complex, which is always so annoying to those around.

Given the opportunity, would you put a gun to Bush's head and pull the trigger??? I don't think so. Very few, if any, of us would. When spouting rhetoric, we've all said something of the sort about someone. at sometime. Rhetoric aside, I would say that I wish Bush would get common sense, and that the USA as a nation would get humility.

Well, I'm not the first to intruduce the word "ugly" into this thread, but now that it's here, as the old saying goes; Beauty is only skin deep...... but ugly goes right to the bone

I wouldn't lean to heavily on them for voting for Bush. His speech writers manage to put words in his mouth which paint him as a devout and caring Christian, and one who is just so sincerely sorry about the "necessity" of going to war. The other problem is the two-party system in the USA. You don't have to look like the best man for the job. As long as you can make the other guy look worse, you'll get the votes. In this regard, Bush's spin-doctors were the best.

Well, I am Catholic (non-practising), and when I got married, the Catholic church refused to perform the ceremony unless my fiancee would agree to become a practising Catholic. We got married in a United church.

I've seen this basic premise before, and I'm not sure whether I buy it or not. While it seems to be true for the moment, and there is certainly a fair bit of infighting going on, I don't think the war has really drawn any of AlQaeda's big guns into the fray. I think any so called "insurgents" over there are bottom-rung cannon fodder and little else, possibly motivated by the chance to gain glory, and the fabled 32 virgins, by dying in battle with an enemy of Islaam. As long as Islaamic leaders can argue with any sort of credibility that their religion and culture is being persecuted by Israeli and/or US interests, there will be a breeding ground for terror recruits. And as long as Terror's top brass is still at large, especially Osama, the figurehead, we will continue to see terror strikes from that organization. For those who would say that there have been no major striked against the USA on home soil since the war began, well, remember that such strikes were not exactly common before the war. They don't happen every few weeks, more like several years apart. I for one am not convinced that there will be no further attacks on US soil. I am dead certain that strikes in other countries will continue on a regular basis.

Oh, the self righteous moaning of the Americans who HAVE to fight at every opportunity. Oops, sorry, I meant "forced to fight" at every "imminent threat". Yup. Good thing we got that umbrella, cause it seems like it's starting to rain bull$h!t in here. How easy it is for the short-sighted and forgetful American to blindly swallow presidential rhetoric which gets you into all these wars. Please explain to me again why the war in Iraq was necessary??? Oh yeah, I forgot. It was an "imminent threat". Yeah. That's it. Saddam was about to invade you guys. Sorry. My humblest apologies. Well, maybe because when the terrorists murder someone, we all say "That is despicable", and no one comes on the message boards saying "No, it's not". Unlike the American abuses. How much longer are you guys gonna keep trying to justify them??? It would be much easier to say "Hey, some of our guys screwed up. In this case we're in the wrong. Sorry." Maybe then it would all go away. But no, you'd rather say "It's okay for us to do it, because the other guys do much worse things". It's just sad, really. But hey, since you seem to think getting stripped naked and having dogs chewing on your thighs is so much fun, why not take the whole family down to the neighbourhood pound, get naked, and rub raw hamburg all over your legs. I'm sure you'd just love it. Your wording seems to leave some doubt as to who "they" are that you're referring to. The terrorists??? If so, I'm sure we'd ALL like for them to fight that way. Not to mention a fairly large segment of the population of the USA. Perhaps you've heard of some of the protests, and maybe checked out some American political forums. If not, then you should. Any anti-war sentiment I've read on this site pales by comparison to what some of you're own countrymen are saying. And Reagan. Gee. I miss him. Don't you??? Yeah, Canada was in on WWII. A war that truly NEEDED to be fought. The Second World War. Did you get that??? WORLD War. The last war that everyone needed to get involved with. But you're right in saying that we don't race to jump into every regional war that raises it's head. We also don't go around creating wars when there are none currently going on that serve our purpose. As for the "precision weapon" comment, that has already been addressed and shot down in flames

Iiiiiiiinteresting. Thanks TFB, for the update.

Yeah, but it's pretty tough to say "Honey, you are as equally more beautiful as all other women" Kinda rings hollow, don't you think??

This is silly. On the one hand we have scientists saying that we are indeed causing, or at least contributin, to gloabal warming/climate change. On the other hand, we have scientists claiming we are having no effect whatsoever. Any of us can easily back up our stance with websites and/or literature which "proves" our point. Here's my analogy. You driving a car. You have two passengers. One says "I think there's a cliff up ahead, better slow down". The other says "I see no evidence of that, let's not waste time, speed up". In this debate, I do not know with absolute certainty who is right, and who is wrong. But neither do any of you. Neither do the scientists, although the ones who have actually conducted the research are better equipped to form an opinion than those who have simply crunched numbers so as to come up with an answer that fits their agenda. But if we wait until we are absolutely certain, by then it may be too late. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution, just like the car and the cliff. Regarding attempts to reduce pollution, how can ANYBODY say that this is a bad idea??? We breath this stuff. We drink it. We eat it. I'd rather think that a fish I am frying does not contain mercury. I'd like to believe that the air I am breathing is not full of sulphurous gases. I'd like to think that the water I drink isn't full of degraded pesticides which has run off from crops. Unfortunately, you can't always get what you want. Regarding wind, solar and other alternative energy sources, we should definitely be looking into ANY possibilities. Eventually every well runs dry. Windpower in particular holds promise as it is founded on easily-maintained existing technology. (Myself and a friend are currently, as a hobby, designing a wind-powered generating system. We want to eventually get off the hydro grid altogether. Surprisingly, it's not as difficult as it sounds. The main trouble is converting most things in the house to DC power. If anyone's interested, PM me.) Regarding nuclear energy, it's had a remarkably good record so far, given the disastrous possibilities. In addition, it's not a limited resource. Hardly my first choice if other alternatives can be developed, though.

I'm surprised it's taken this long to develop something of this sort. I'm also surprised they haven't implemented something bigger, like a miniature tank with small-caliber artillery capability.

Very nice, Kimmy. I like it. Lets try football (with apologies to Robert A Heinlein, I wish I could find his exact quote...): Two gangs of men, each attempting to move an eliptical, inflated bladder from one end of a field to the other, against the opposition of the other gang. Both gangs are dressed in protective body armor, which does little to actually protect them. Whosoever attempts to carry said eliptical bladder, is the target for various indignities, and sometimes downright violent attack, from defending members of the opposite gang. Humour (or attempts at it) aside, I think one of the problems with body-contact sports is this; back in the old days, when a quarterback got sacked, the guy who sacked him would simply get up and walk away. Now a sack is cause for celebration. In addition, these guys seem to think that maximum force is required at all times. The harder the hit, the bigger the celebration. This is leading to increased number of injuries in football. Likewise in hockey, it used to be that a bodycheck was delivered with enough force to knock the opponent off his feet, or even just cause him to lose control of the puck. Nowadays, it seems like every hit is an attampt to put your opponent through the boards. In extreme cases, players are instructed to put a particularly talented member of the opposing team "out of the game". This is not sportsmanship, nor is it sport. It is thuggery, pure and simple. When your aim is to injure an opponent so he cannot continue playing, that is where sportsmanship ends.

Historically, you're right. I agree. Again, I agree. I don't think you give yourself, or the rest of Canada, enough credit. What is maturity in a nation??? Is it flag waving and saber rattling??? Is it the desire to re-shape the world in the image of your own country??? Or is it the ability to say "What works for us may not work for you"??? If we take an individual person as an analogy for a nation, then what I would describe as "maturity" would be someone who is calm, reasonable, generous, helpful and humble. Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others. IMHO, Canada fits quite nicely into the first group.

"All women are beautiful, but some are more beautiful than others" -Lazarus Long aka Robert A Heinlein

I am talking about comparison of women from the old movies to present day. At some point there was no pressure to be thin, even further back venus de milo was not thin. I agree that the popular image has changed. Models seem to be skinnier than in times past, with a few exceptions, Anna Nicole Smith comes to mind. But thinness (not skinniness) has been in vogue for quite a while. Look back to Anne Miller, Mary Tyler Moore, Racquel Welsh, Lucille Ball etc etc....even the aforementioned Theda Bara was pretty thin. The flappers from the Roaring Twenties, none of them plump. Venus De Milo, on the other hand, comes from an era when plumpness was in vogue. The "Rubenesque" body-type was all the rage for decades, if not centuries. How do you think that made skinny women feel at the time??? Did they gorge trying to gain weight??? How did that affect their health??? Can you say cardiac arrest??? As it should be. Kidding, of course. Then why have cosmetics been in use since before Christ walked the Earth??? Why were people making rudimentary combs from animal bones??? Why did oriental women bind their feet??? Why did some African tribal women put those rings around their necks tto make their neck longer??? Why the hockey-puck stuck in the lower lip??? How about earrings??? Beauty has been a concern since people climbed down from the trees. Possibly earlier. This is hold-over. Keep in mind where we are. There has been a quantum shift in power vis-a-vis the sexes, but this has only been going on for less than a century. In just the past twenty years University attendance has shifted from primarily men, to majority women. This trend will likely continue. We now have major corporations owned by women. Yes, more are still owned by men, but the gap is narrowing. Likewise government. How many women held positions of power 50 years ago??? None??? Now we have quite a few women in government, both here in Canada, and in many other countries. The times they are a'changin'. No I don't think.... You don't say. (I'm sorry about that, but it was too easy....I couldn't resist) You know, where I work, the vast majority (80-85%) of the supervisory and management staff are women, whereas the workplace population is about 50-50 men/women. Of these women who hold the reins of power in a workplace that employs about 800 people, less than 10% are women who I would describe as attractive, let alone beautiful. None are skinny. Some are downright fat. But all are intelligent and hard working. As for women in politics, have you ever taken a good look at Shiela Copps??? I can't think of any female MP's who would make the cover of Playboy, or even Health And Fitness. See my previous comment. Okay. Don't forget "Tall, dark and handsome", or "Hung like a horse", or "Built like Adonis" How many truly ugly Presidents or Prime Ministers can you recall offhand??? Now you missed a few here as well. A great rack is a benefit, as is a fine butt. (Yes I am a man. Yes, all men are pigs. But some are more honest about admitting it) Yup. And BTW, is that a pun??? Did you mean to write "Houston" or is this a pun on Angelica Huston??? Again, see my reply regarding my workplace, and female politicians. There are other examples that belie your statement. In my area, the top-selling real-estate agent is an incredibly ugly woman. I must admit that she piles on the makeup and hairspray, and will sit in her car preening for sometimes a half-hour before going in to see a client. But the more she preens, the uglier she gets. It doesn't seem to get in the way of her sales. There is also the image of the "bimbo". The gorgeous babe who is all beauty and no brains. This, I would think, would actually work AGAINST a beautiful woman who is attempting to further her business/political position. So, to summarize, sorry, but I can't buy it. Yes, there is a beauty industry. Yes, there are more pretty women portrayed to us in the media than ugly women. But the same can be said of men. Find me a single male news anchor who is ugly, or has a disfiguring scar or any major blemishes. Packaging sells. If it looks good, people will buy it, from cars to stereos to tv's to tv personalities, male or female. No one is forcing women to look like anything. Women are taking that burden upon themselves, by their own choice. If an individual woman is so easily influenced by the media, then it proves nothing except the weakness of will of that individual.

You got that right. Me??? I'd prefer to think "Madam and Eve"

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps I should call you an anti-semite, because you don't agree with the Jewish lifestyle. You don't keep the sabbath holy by worshiping on Saturday, you don't believe in God. You believe in absolute separation of church and state. I guess by your criteria you'd be a bigot as well hmm. I don't think so. Quote from Dictionary.com..... The key word here is "intolerant". I do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday, but I have no problem with anyone else doing so. They are free to practise their religion as they see fit, as long as it does not have an immediate negative impact on my life, or anyone else's. On the other hand, two gay folks getting married would have no impact on your life, and yet you seeks to prevent them from doing so. Why is that??? Me??? I won't. The more the marrier (pun intended). How you live your personal life is your own business, and unless it has some sort of negative impact on my life, then I should have no say in the matter.

I have to agre with KIMMY that as "Attack Ads" go, this is incredibly tame. I was quite disappointed when I saw it. In fact, it's barely an ad at all. The extent of the attack is using one word, "impose", which has negative connotations. A word like "sanction" would also have imposed a negative feeling into the ad. "Recognize" or "legalize" would have been a little more on-base. But nothing is being imposed on me, as I will not be marrying anyone of the same sex, no matter whether SSM is legalized or not. In fact, it's already recognized and legal in Ontario, where I live, and does not seem to have impacted on my life at all except in a very small way; two gay friends of mine are now happily married. And a fine marriage it was, the groom dressed in a white suit, the other groom in full Scottish kit. The only thing missing from a straight marriage was neither groom got to throw out the garter. No bouquet thrown, either. Really, I can't believe that with all the ills in the world, both within Canada and without, that so many people are still so bloody hung up over something that has no personal impact on their lives, and want to dictate to another segment of society how they will be allowed to live their personal lives. There are people starving, there are people dying, and we're bickering over two girls/guys having a ceremony to exchange vows, like as though it's gonna bring the world to an end. To me this is a non-issue and all the debate surrounding it is a waste of time and money. Fun, though.

Good for them. Nothing like a good sleigh ride. Makes sense. To each his/her own. Or maybe two much. In all seriousness, I could care less. How someone wants to arrange their private life, marital or otherwise, bothers me not one bit. There are already rare cases where people are living in polygamous relationships. I know of two such arrangements. One of these "married" triads are good friends of mine. They see themselves as spouses, and have been together for 9 or 10 years now. They are simply not legally married. IMO, a piece of legal document does not a marriage make. The commitments made between two, and now perhaps three or more people, is what makes a marriage. If said marriage is not recognized by law, it does not make it less valid factually, just legally. Kinda like someone who steals, but has never been caught. The law may not recognize him as a thief, simply because he has not been convicted. But it does not make him less of a thief.

Y'know, it never occured to me before this, but I'm really quite surprised that more people don't use this as a loophole to avoid service, and or combat. Think about it; those guys that refused to go to Iraq, and bailed in one way or another, all they would have had to do was "come out of the closet" a few weeks before being sent over. Something simple, like making a blatantly obvious pass at your commanding officer. Bing-badda-bing. Out of the frying pan, and scott-free. Worst case scenario.....honorable discharge.

Yeah...... .....and lot's of them. I always thought the normal allotment was two..... Oh well, you know how they say some guys buy hot cars because they are "penis extensions"???? What does this say about Bush???

Check his pockets for cash

With all due respect, I must disagree. I am free to dabble in the stock market, despite the fact that I have little to no knowledge about the proper way to go about doing so. If I jump in and lose a bundle of money on stocks, it is by my own free choice. Freedom is not an issue in this case. My wisdom could, however, be called into question, but that's not unusual.

Yeah, man, happy birthday. I have to disagree. I don't know what "Old Movies" you're talking about where beauty was not "on the agenda". But let's look back. Ever hear the Name Theda Bara??? The first movie sex goddess, from the silent film era. Fay Wray, first darling of King Kong. Lauren Bacall. Lord, I don't even know where to begin carrying on with this, so I won't. There have been, since the very beginning of movies, sex symbols, each appropriate to her own era, each as risque as they could get away with at the time. Sex sells. To men. And to women. Men are simply less shy about admitting it. But have you ever been to a club where they have male strippers??? The women go insane. Go to a joint with female strippers, the men generally sit around watching, and are usually pretty quiet. I don't think it's a matter of guilt or innocence, simply human nature. And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, why are magazines which are owned and edited by women, perpetuating the whole thing by not only running ads featuring these "perfect figures", but even using these models in the articles in the magazines??? There's an inherent contradiction and/or hypocrisy in touting how a woman should concentrate on being healthy rather than glamorous, and then running articles and ads where the pictorials are all heavily made-up mannequin-perfect models. The guilt, if there is any, is shared by both sexes. I don't buy into this paranoia. Among advertisers, the so-called "beauty ideal" is to help sell product. Remember that. The reason for any image we see on tv or in a magazine is to sell product, whether the product is a cosmetic, a car, a tv show, whatever. No one is out to tell you how you have to look. Although, they may try to influence you into believing what other people expect in a woman's appearance. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. We live in a free society. What you are saying is tantamount to those idiots who claim that Ozzy Osbourne and Marilyn Manson, through their music, make kids commit suicide. If someone is so qweak-willed that they have no self-identity, and can only feel fulfilled by meeting the expectations of advertisers, then they need more help than mere makeup can provide. They should be seeking therapy. If this is a test, then the passing grade is easy to attain. All it takes is for an individual to say "I am me, I am how I am, I don't need to look or act like anyone other than myself". Simple, don't you think??? Like the cigarette package says "You've come a long way, Baby". Hmmm. As far as I'm concerned, women are superior to men. They have simply yet to realize it. And no, I'm not a woman. I believe you're being a tad paranoid again. This post reminds me of the character "Hyde" from That 70's Show. See previous response.