blackbird

It's not my business to find sources of information for you. You have been exposed. All you want to do is post lying and false information.

"Warning that some posters are using biased and anti-Semitic sources to bolster their anti-Semitic arguments on here. Allegations of ideological and selection bias[edit] HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "skeptical of anyone in a uniform."[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[2] In October 2009, Bernstein said that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East:[2] "[T]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."[2] HRW responded by saying that HRW "does not devote more time and energy to Israel than to other countries in the region, or in the world".[3] Tom Porteus, director of the HRW's London branch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organization must apply the same human rights standards to all countries."[4] According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[1] The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial murder ... on a vast scale")[1] and it first said no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. In their correction issued on 4 April 2010, The Times said HRW had published nine articles about the conflict in Kashmir and one report about the post-election abuses in Iran in February that year.[5] A source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let's face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel."[1] The newspaper quoted Noah Pollak, an HRW critic and conservative commentator, said HRW cares if Israel maltreats Palestinians but "is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arab". One example given was the 2007 Lebanon conflict in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp and it was said HRW issued one press release but not a report.[1] In their correction, The Times said HRW had written three press releases and had reported abuses against Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq.[5]" Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia

Hah! You don't do your research. Just find something and post it without looking at all the facts. Human Rights Watch has been accused of bias against Israel in reporting in the middle east. quote HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "skeptical of anyone in a uniform."[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[2] In October 2009, Bernstein said that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East:[2] "[T]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region." "According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[1] The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial murder ... on a vast scale")[1] and it first said no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. In their correction issued on 4 April 2010, The Times said HRW had published nine articles about the conflict in Kashmir and one report about the post-election abuses in Iran in February that year.[5] A source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let's face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel."[1]" Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia That's enough proof right there you quote biased and anti-Semitic sources.

You forgot the job of the opposition leader is to oppose the government. So criticizing him for "sound bites" doesn't make sense. That is how the Parliamentary system works. It is always sound bites. You seem to be somewhat of a liberal if you have bought into the climate change scam. The liberals have no idea how the economy works or don't care. That's why it is so bad with high inflation and huge lack of housing for Canadians. Don't forget conservatives believe in letting free enterprise build the economy and prosperity. Liberals believe Canada needs intervention in everything. That's the same situation in provincial and municipal governments and is the reason it takes so long and so much red tape to get approval to build homes, etc. Same problem with mining. It takes many years and much red tape to get approval to build mines or even start. That's liberalism. Over regulated and over taxed. The ideology of conservatism and liberalism are quite different and that is a more important consideration than personalities.

73.6% of Israelis are Jewish. Religion in Israel - Wikipedia You didn't say whether you are Catholic or what religious affiliation or background. This is likely pure bias or anti-Semitism. Just throwing out extreme claims does not make it a fact. There is also no proof that there is systematic brutality. There may be isolated cases as happens occasionally even in western countries. If you want to see brutality in history, check into the Roman church in Europe and what they did. Self defence is not brutality. Israel has had to defend itself all through history. You obviously have an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel streak which is very common in the world. This is very common because of the herd mentality in the world. That's why it is important to study the Bible and believe it and don't automatically take some denomination's word for the interpretation. That's the only way I know of to avoid falling into the trap which swallowed most of Europe for a couple thousand years.

Yes, I agree Mr. Singh is too ideological. His party is similar. I don't agree that Mr. Poilievre is not competent. He is fairly young still, has not had the experience yet of being a PM or even a cabinet minister. I think much of what he says makes sense. I trust him far more than Trudeau or the Liberals. I have had the same problem with politicians not answering E mails. I don't know what the reason is. But I think you have much less chance of receiving a response from a party leader because they likely receive thousands of Emails every day or so. But ordinary MPs should be responding especially to their constituents. I sent an Email a couple weeks ago to our NDP MP about all the random attacks of people and said the government and system is not protecting the people. Never received a response yet. He sends out flyers every few weeks to every home and gives his contact information in the flyers. But doesn't seem to respond unless he replies later. So what is the point if he can't even acknowledge receiving an Email? But the NDP is so dogmatic about their own position, I doubt anything I say will be even considered.

We see the real reason why Canadians are forced to pay 35 million dollars for the Pope's tour in Canada. Premier Legault today, Easter Monday, in a tweet pointed to Catholicism as an important and unique part of Quebec's history. "Legault on Monday morning shared on Twitter a column by nationalist writer Mathieu Bock-Côté, who suggested that Quebec's Catholic past enshrined in its people a culture of solidarity that distinguishes them on the continent." While claiming to support secularism, Legault, Trudeau, and other Papist liberal political leaders gladly fork over 35 million dollars of Canadian taxpayer money for the Papal PR visit.

You argument is with God then because that's how the Bible is. Do you seriously think any serious King in history would approve the following of other would-be kings in his kingdom? Or would they be considered as traitors or false kings? Simple logic isn't it?

What is your religion? Are you Catholic? You don't seem to accept the Bible. The Bible is full of miracles that God performed for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. No nation on earth has had the Divine presence as they have had. The miracles God performed for them are many. And the promises for them are clear. They are God's chosen people and he has a special place for them promised for the future.

Do you even know what Zionism is? Zionism or pro-Zionism is simply support for the State of Israel. Israel has a perfect right to exist and to defend themselves against jihad. So of course I would support pro Zionism which means pro Israel. Unless you are anti-Semitic or a Nazi you should be pro-Zionism. If you are a Bible believer, you must bless Israel and Zionism.

The U.N. is a proven anti-Semitic powerful global organization that makes more motions against Israel than any other nation. It is full of Islamic dictatorships, and other authoritarian anti-Semitic countries. Yet you believe them.

So you would prefer a Socialist party rather than a free enterprise party? It is the liberals and NDP that are wrecking the economy and society in general in Canada. No party is perfect as far as ethics. When in power they have all had their ethics failures or scandals. That is a given in the system and in politics. If you find the perfect party, let us know. But Socialist and liberal lefties are the worst in every way.

I'm sure the Alberta NDP has its share of scandals when they were in power. " This email accidentally sent to CBC News contains scripted answers to reporters' questions about the two unnamed NDP MLAs who were investigated for sexual misconduct. (CBC) The email offers a glimpse at the government's behind-the scenes message management on an issue the premier's office has appeared eager to avoid. Premier Rachel Notley has refused to reveal the identities of the two MLAs, claiming that could reveal the identities of the complainants. The incidents took place outside the workplace. The third-party investigations found the issues could be resolved through education, Notley said." -CBC news So does that mean the public don't get to know who or what happened with regard to leaked reports about sexual misconduct involving MLAs and what the punishment was? Looks like no punishment, just a bit of "education". Another issue: "Luff was removed from NDP caucus two weeks ago after she made allegations about bullying and intimidation by party leadership. " What about bullying and intimidation within the party? Where are the details about that? The NDP are certainly not angels either. Anyone who is looking for the perfect political party, you can always be hopeful. I know who I prefer. Someone who is not a Socialist and who will stand up to the Trudeau climate change radicals who have been harming Alberta's energy industry for years, not some lefty who will cozy up to Trudeau and climate change radicals without any real resistance to their harmful policies.

Odd that some people seem to think there is a negotiable solution available. The Canadian government claims to support a two-state solution, which will never work. This is the same Canadian government that thought China could be changed and convinced to accept liberalism when Trudeau made his hopeless trip to China back around 2015. He was rejected as an ignorant westerner by China. When will these liberals ever learn there are some governments and systems that will not change. It is the same with the Palestinians. These are Arabs who do not believe that Israel has a right to exist and they never will. Conflicts there have been going on for many centuries. No amount of talk is going to change their thinking. "The Islamization of Jerusalem refers to the process through which Jerusalem and its Old City adopted an Islamic atmosphere of influence and eventually a significant Muslim presence. The foundation for Jerusalem's Islamization was laid by the Muslim conquest of the Levant, and began shortly after the city was besieged and captured in 638 CE by the Rashidun Caliphate under Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Rashidun caliph. The second wave of Islamization occurred after the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a Christian state that was established after the First Crusade, at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. The eventual fall of the Crusader states by 1291 led to a period of almost-uninterrupted Muslim rule that lasted for seven centuries, and a dominant Islamic culture was consolidated in the region during the Ayyubid, Mamluk and early Ottoman periods. Beginning in the late Ottoman era, Jerusalem’s demographics turned increasingly multicultural, and regained a Jewish-majority character during the late-19th and early-20th centuries that had not been seen since the Roman period, which largely ended the Jewish presence in the region.[1]" Islamization of Jerusalem - Wikipedia Another conflicting issue is Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel going back several thousand years and part of that is the importance of the temple mount where the Judean temple was first built about 1000 B.C., destroyed and later built. Then destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Then the Muslims built their mosque on the site, which of course creates a whole new problem. " The Temple in Jerusalem, or alternatively the Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ‎, Modern: Bēt haMīqdaš, Tiberian: Bēṯ hamMīqdāš; Arabic: بيت المقدس, Bayt al-Maqdis), refers to the two now-destroyed religious structures that served as the central places of worship for Israelites and Jews on the modern-day Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. According to the Hebrew Bible, the First Temple was built in the 10th century BCE, during the reign of Solomon over the United Kingdom of Israel. It stood until c. 587 BCE, when it was destroyed during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. Almost a century later, the First Temple was replaced by the Second Temple, which was built after the Neo-Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Achaemenid Persian Empire. While the Second Temple stood for a longer period of time than the First Temple, it was likewise destroyed during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Projects to build the hypothetical "Third Temple" have not come to fruition in the modern era, though the Temple in Jerusalem still features prominently in Judaism.[1] Outside of Judaism, the Temple (and todays Temple Mount) also carries a high level of significance as the third-holiest site in Islam. Two landmark Ummayyad-era structures, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque lie today atop the Temple Mount, called the "Al Aqsa Mosque compound" or Haram al-Sharif." Temple in Jerusalem - Wikipedia

Freedom of association is part of the Charter of Rights; therefore how would you ban a political party you don't agree with? I know they do that in places like Iran or China where any group that does not follow the party line is illegal or banned. But maybe you're trying to trick me into saying they should be banned. Am I correct?

I never said all religion is false. Do you believe Leftism is a true religion? It has the marks of religion as the article explains, but only a man-made religion.

A false religion is a negative thing. The world is full of them.

Good point dialamah! Some people do make a god out of Trump. However Trump's agenda seems less harmful than Leftism's religion. Trump opposes Globalism, climate change fanaticism, open borders and other things that are wrecking America such as the woke. While Trump is not the best choice, it seems in America there are only two choice, either poor, or very bad (Leftism).

Yes, I think you are correct. You have the correct definition.

Real conservatives belief freedom of speech should not be banned or limited with rare exceptions. It is the left or liberals who want to ban speech and control what is said on social media, etc. It is leftism that wants to police what everyone says.

Really? What is it then?

Yes of course some beliefs are harmful. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

Communist or Fascist states don't allow other parties to exist. I thought democratic states allow any group to have their own political party. Unfortunately even democracies seem to veer off the rails and end up in the gutter often. It only proves democracy in and of itself is no guarantee of a good, honest society.

You said that, not me. I thought in a democracy any group is free to have it's political party including those we disagree with.

It is natural for people to form alliances for common beliefs. Identity politics is just the organizing of people with common beliefs on something. Some beliefs might be reasonable but many must be rejected as harmful to society, such as leftism and progressivism. "Identity politics is when people of a particular race, ethnicity, gender, or religion form alliances and organize politically to defend their group’s interests. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay liberation movement are all examples of this kind of political organizing." Identity Politics | Philosophy Talk