en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/604947 Comments by RuyDiaz http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/dark-predictions-of-a-kgb-defector/#IDComment105148217 Jamie, you are wrong. You are capable enough that this won't end your career--but this one surely should not go in your resume. Golytsin is as reliable as a Yugo. His conspiracy fantasies have done enough damage already. Please, please! think this one through. There are easier explanations for our present situation. Russia's leadership is making things as it goes along, not following a masterful deception from half a century ago. There is no need to invoke conspiracy when simple human frailty will do. Disappointedly yours; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:45:46 +0000 http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/dark-predictions-of-a-kgb-defector/#IDComment105148217 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/12/why-johnnys-so-pissed-off-1/#IDComment98431526 "For one thing, if some kids are born bad, why the tremendous rise of babies born with natural aggression? Is it something modern mothers are eating? Moreover, prisons are filled with adults with disastrous childhoods. If some children are born with a propensity toward anger and aggression, why don’t half the folks in prisons have lovely parents?" Dear Ms. Venker; Parents pass their genes to their genes to their offspring--including genes 'for' lack of self control, violence, and so on. Then those same parents live with their children--leading to disastrous childhoods. There is no good way to sugarcoat this, so I'll go just ahead and say it: you need to grasp a basic understanding of genetics before you comment on the topic again. You really, really do. Regards; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:02:30 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/12/why-johnnys-so-pissed-off-1/#IDComment98431526 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027034.php#IDComment28451083 Actually, those eyes are quite pretty, and I'm sure.... ...good Lord, I'm taking the wrong path on this. A bad, twisted road... (*grin*) Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:57:30 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027034.php#IDComment28451083 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/23/one-flap-of-a-butterfly’s-wings/#IDComment28138657 Indeed. Steyn is your honey trap, Sunday to Saturday. Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:19:52 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/23/one-flap-of-a-butterfly’s-wings/#IDComment28138657 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/23/one-flap-of-a-butterfly’s-wings/#IDComment28135752 Speaking of perversions.... Jack Mitchell, you again? What are the odds? Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:41:03 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/23/one-flap-of-a-butterfly’s-wings/#IDComment28135752 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026964.php#IDComment27703076 Sadly, you are probably right. Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:40:09 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026964.php#IDComment27703076 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026964.php#IDComment27692543 "Freeing the 15-year-old girl is what really got me in trouble..." The man in the story reminds me of members of the KGB who eventually could not take it anymore. Hope his moral courage doesn't falter. Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:21:59 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026964.php#IDComment27692543 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026932.php#IDComment27328784 Oh, the nerve. The nerve of calling repression of Muslims in China genocide, while denying the real, honest-to-god genocide of the Armenians. It's hypocrisy on such a level it's hard to imagine. You'd think a Turkish Prime Minister would have the half decency to avoid the word. Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:36:06 +0000 http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026932.php#IDComment27328784 http://jihadwatch.org/#IDComment27176544 The ALA doesn't live up to its stated principles. Back in 2003, they refused to back up the 10 Cuban independent librarians who were imprisoned in a show trial. They repeated the Cuban talking point that the librarians were condemned for breaking Cuba's sedition law. (As indeed they were. Cuba's sedition law is so sweeping, that lending books without authorization can be shown to be sedition!) The ALA is not, and has never been, for free speech. They are for the appearance of free speech. They will support measures, under the cloak of free speech, in accord with the worldview of its leadership. Pornographic or semi-pornographic materials available to underage patrons? Free speech. Independent Cuban librarians lending 1984 to its patrons? Not free speech, and the "independent librarians" are not even librarians because they don't belong to a professional organization such as the ALA. Free speech qua free speech they have never been about. Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:15:44 +0000 http://jihadwatch.org/#IDComment27176544