Goddess

It may not be its "stated" goal but that is exactly what it is. I wasn't making a comment on the Palestine/Gaza thing - I'm well aware that there are other people besides Muslims that support Palestine. There's a difference between supporting Palestine and calling for the death of all Jews. If you can read those articles (and others) about the Al Quds in Canada, and conclude that everything is fine, that says a lot about you - as I notice once again, when I bring up a problem you "pooh-pooh" my views as being racist and Islamophobic and only condemn me, not what is going on at these Al Qud celebrations. If Jews were having a celebration every year saying all Muslims must die and are not entitled to live on the planet, you'd be screaming with outrage. The Bnai Brith have been calling for an end to this annual hatefest in Canada for quite a while now. Are they also racist and Islamophobic? Or is it just everyone who dares to talk about the negative things done in Islam that is racist and Islamophobic to you? Maybe you better get on the phone with them and tell them how wrong they are for protesting this. Condemn them for condemning this, as you are now condemning me. As Rue says - go ahead and finish it. Write your representatives and let them know how completely out of line Bnai Brith is for spotlighting this problem. Yes, Dia, I'm well aware that there are moderate Muslims out there. My question is: Why is it not the moderate Muslims who are handling this issue? Why when that Sheihk calls for the death of Jews does the crowd of 400 people cheer? In Canada. Why it is the Bnai Brith leading the charge here and not moderate Muslims? Why is it rarely moderate Muslims that turn in imams that speak like this? You're the one who is always berating and censoring others here because the words we use are soooooo important and must be the exact "Dia Approved" words , yet when Muslims are doing this, suddenly the words they use are not as important to you......very hypocrite, much double standard. Are you going to pay for my travel and time to do that? Unless you can point out to me where I have continually made excuses for white supremacists, as you do for Islamists....... I'm condemning it now and you're here telling me I'm wrong for condemning it.

From some links on another thread, I just realized that what I witnessed a few years ago was probably this: https://www.bnaibrith.ca/sheikh_calls_for_eradication_of_israelis_at_toronto_al_quds_day_rally https://www.bnaibrith.ca/iran_issues The one I witnessed was absolutely a hatefest and I was stunned that nobody - nobody - said anything about it. Where are all the "moderate Muslims"? https://dianebederman.com/pm-trudeau-is-al-quds-day-compatible-with-the-west/

i do find that odd. I find that just as odd as you accepting Trump's hatreds and prejudices while saying "Good presidents are hard to find, especially ones chosen directly by God."

Edit: Weird double post

There must have been something to them, though,(??) because they detonated the one sent to Soros. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45949737

Do you think ISIS gives a crap that it could severely damage Islam's image? I'm not sure your reasoning there is completely sound enough to conclude that it could NOT be a Republican. I think it's too early to jump on any conspiracy trains.

I've heard similar problems from friends of mine and had similar experiences myself. It seems the only way to NOT oppress certain ones is to allow them their "right" to oppress others.

I disagree but only because of 2 things - there is only so much we can do for them. A lot of people in 3rd world countries have the amount of children they do because they are hoping that if they have 6 or 8 kids, maybe 4 or 5 will survive into adulthood and of those 4 or 5, hopefully 1 or 2 of them will look after the parents in their old age. There are no pensions or social welfare in those countries for them to rely on. So reality for them is that they need to have lots of children to ensure they are looked after in their old age. The difference is that when they immigrate to Western countries, the mentality that they must continually produce children doesn't change and in the West, large families are more of a hindrance, unless you're independently wealthy. But we solve that problem by making child-bearing a very lucrative pastime. More lucrative than learning the language, learning a new trade or skill or adapting to Canadian life. Which brings me to the second point: Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has stuck their nose into these countries and instructed them in the Catholic belief that birth control pills are from the Devil and you go to hell for using them and family planning is sinful. The Church (and other fundie groups, I'm sure) wont' let them have birth control pills. Add in the fact that in many of these countries, women's rights are non-existent and women are basically just chattel kept for breeding purposes.

I think the problem is some people have zero'ed in on the "Innocent until proven guilty" mantra put forth by the Republicans. Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Reasonable doubt. This is a fantastic standard in criminal cases. A necessary standard in a free nation. I'm a fan! However, people have been arguing that it is the only standard in all contexts at all times. Yeah...that's bullshit...as evidenced by fresh chants of LOCK HER UP at Trump rallies. This time, Feinstein, not Clinton is in their sights. This standard is for criminal prosecution. Only. Even in the courts. For instance, in civil trials, this standard is not used. Preponderance of the evidence is used. Pretty vague? Yep. It comes down to who a judge or jury decide best proved their case. There is no reasonable doubt standard nor innocent until proven guilty. But many Trump supporters are pretending it is also a cultural imperative. LOCK HER UP! That our very society rests on this standard. No it isn't and doesn't. Not even in the courts. Your kids are playing in the park. A strange man is staring at them. You get an instinctive feeling of danger. Do you tell yourself he is innocent until proven otherwise? Hopefully not. You make your children safe. Because you DO NOT live your life by that standard. No one does. How many careers or social lives have been destroyed in the past because of claims of homosexuality, or sexual promiscuity, or atheism, or any list of things people decide to be outraged about over the years. They were not operating under innocent until proven guilty, because we never have. So stop arguing that it is the foundation of our society. It is not, and never has been, and never will be. It is the standard for criminal trials. It is the highest standard in the land. And it's not even the standard for all trials. Only criminal trials.

Yes, you keep saying that. But where is the proof? Do you mean, "see it" like as in "imagine it"? Kavanaugh has his share of outlandish claims, all of which have been refuted by people who knew him at the time. https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

Trump is the foretold Messiah. Wow.

Do you have proof of this? What was the payoff for Dr. Ford?

I love Rick Mercer.

Oh, so you DID understand what I was I saying, you're just being deliberately dense. Haha, that's so funny. So..... you come down hard on Dr. Ford for her reaction (which most women understood was completely normal) but again, Kavanaugh's over-the-top reaction is excused away. I'm not sure your example of how people react differently in an immediate life-threatening situation quite compares to a situation where you have the time to think about the best way to react, as Kavanaugh did. Time to think about how to react is the key there. I expect this will go "whoosh" over your head, as most other things do. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/chris-hardwick-will-return-host-amc-show-following-abuse-accusations-n894671 https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-crimes/hardwick-false-allegations-dropped

**sigh**

True. Again, my point is that if there was any time to be professional - this was it. And he blew it.

Very poor reading comprehension between you and Betsy. Try again. I wasn't comparing TWD to anything. I was comparing Chris Hardwick's reaction to allegations to Kavanaugh's reaction. I thought that should have been pretty obvious, even to you two.

His temper tantrums indicate to me - and to many others - that he is unfit for that very important position on the SC. That was my only point.

When the only thing you got is to ignore everything I said and criticize what I like to watch on TV....well, there you have it, folks.

What bias? I've never expressed any admiration for Trudeau, either. ???

If you think a rage-filled man who has temper tantrums like a 4 year old and is only being picked so he can save an incompetent President's ass from impeachment is perfect for your Supreme Court, then you're in luck. Because that's what you got. Enjoy.

I think he showed a side of himself that he's been trying to hide for a long time. As a judge, his judgments could be examined and overturned. As a SCJustice, he holds a lot more power and I think his temper tantrum and raging belligerent attitude showed that he is perhaps not ready for that more important position. I'd see Chris Hardwick on the SC before I'd see Kavanaugh. Just based on how they handled their allegations.

I disagree that his reaction was "normal". Here's why: I'm a big The Walking Dead fan, so I watched with interest while Chris Hardwick was caught up in accusations from an old girlfriend. While it was being investigated, Chris Hardwick was fired from his jobs, lost all his endorsements, and I'm sure it strained his marriage and was a very stressful time for him. The difference was in HOW he and his wife handled it. They never once unleashed any kind of rage against the old girlfriend or against the companies who fired him over the allegations. Chris defended himself but he did it with grace and dignity and he did it in such a way that the offended girlfriend was also given her dignity. He never once had a rage-filled temper tantrum. On his facebook and twitter feeds and in articles written about him, I saw mostly women sticking up for Chris because the things being said about him were so out of character. In the end, it was determined that the girlfriend's allegations were exaggerated and his jobs and endorsements were reinstated to him and he has made no real public comment since then about any of it. My point is this: No, Betsy. Rage-filled temper tantrums is not the "normal" way to handle these kinds of allegations. Kavanaugh immediately came out swinging - against Dr. Ford, against the public, against the Dems, against women, against anybody he could possibly make a bit of mud stick. The accusations against Chris were so out of character for him, that it was mostly women who supported him. I don't see that kind of support for Kavanaugh and I think that is telling. In fact, even his close friends agree that he has been a rage-filled drinker for a long time. Men don't have to worry about women - we're not stupid. We intuitively know when allegations are false or exaggerated. I knew it with Chris, I knew it with the fake hijab-cutting girl. Their stories were just....."off". But with Kavanaugh, the reason he is experiencing such backlash is because the allegations have a ring of truth. Every woman feels it. The stories from his past confirm it. Now, if Kavanaugh had come out and said, "Hey guys, I don't remember the incident but as I was a heavy drinker in those days, it's possible that it happened just as she said. And for that, I apologize. I can only say that I was a product of the times and that I have learned and grown since then and ask that you all consider my long record of non-partisan judging." If he had said that, I could have gotten on board and I don't think there would have been the backlash we've seen. No, Kavanaugh is experiencing the consequences of his poor handling of the situation and I think that makes him a very poor judge.