betsy

Strange that on CTV Newsnet, they mentioned this news (I think it is the same one)....but they did not specify exactly what country of origin these Asians are from. The newscaster just said "Asian." Why can't they be more specific? Is this political correctness or what?

Pundits are saying that the poll result could very well be because of the fact that there is no definite leader yet for the Liberals. Therefore no specific person and platform to pit against Harper.

Gerry, Based solely on that damning letter of EGALE which was actually submitted to the government for consideration, concluding that all homosexuals in the gay community are perverts...since EGALE is supposed to represent them...is an irresponsible accusation and gross injustice. Do you agree?

Gerry, Just think of all the unwitting members of EGALE...a lot of whom had nothing to do at all...or had no wish of being associated with the perverts whom the leaders of EGALE would want to protect from the law. Evidenced by that damning letter from EGALE. In a way, they are victims.....like the priests of the church. Are they guilty by association? Their reputation had been put into question...for some could easily look at them with jaundiced eyes and lump them together with the perverts.

I disagree with it. Now answer my question please. That's it? Just a plain, quick, "I disagree?" Somehow your answer seem to lack conviction. Where is the fire? The passion? The indignant outrage? Why aren't you calling for the lynch brigade? I had expected a tirade of condemnations from you....specially aimed at leaders of a group who yearns for this licences to do as they please with children and minors.........considering your extreme abhorrence to diddling of 14 year olds and acts of pedophilia.

I disagree with it. Now answer my question please. As a parent, how would you feel knowing that your religious leaders had been instructed to withold evidence of sexual abuse against children? But I do not know for sure if our religious leaders had been truly instructed to "withold evidence", as you, and the lawyer for the complainant, had alleged. That's a big difference with EGALE isn't it? EGALE had even itself, posted the letter they've themselves submitted...thereby providing proof where my position is standing on. You can say that my argument comes straight from the horse's mouth. While your position stands on....thin air. You've got nothing. And I refuse to put myself in such an irresponsible and immoral stance of slandering, defaming, judging and condemning a man based on an over-zealous and frivolous assumption.

So now you're admitting Harper has some basis...only less IF Iggy had never made the comment. BUT...Iggy DID make the comment! So you must therefore think Harper has MORE than less basis! AND....he therefore had the occasion...AND ample other occasion!

Harper's slur was in response to Iggy's comment. Absent Iggy's comment, Harper's comment is even more inexplicable. ... Why is Harper's comment "even more inexplicable?" What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion? ' Becaaaause -- if Iggy had never made the 'war crime' comment, then Harper would have even less basis (and no occasion) to call Liberals 'anti-Israel'. He may not have had the occasion then...but he definitely had the basis.

They've just discovered that lung cancer is rising among those who don't smoke at all, or not exposed to second hand smoke. So is this taxing or banning just going to be for what we eat...or it could very well extend to other things. For all we know, it's all in the genes. Some people are more susceptible to these diseases.

Harper's slur was in response to Iggy's comment. Absent Iggy's comment, Harper's comment is even more inexplicable. I must have missed out on something here from you....but I read back and all I ever saw was you negating or refuting what some of us have said...and some of us had provided links as to where we've based our arguments. So far, yours are just purely personal opinion. Why is Harper's comment "even more inexplicable?" What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?

And of course, his next move only bolstered up my argument. "Ignatieff set to visit Israel Oct. 14, 2006. 01:00 AM LOUISE BROWN STAFF REPORTER After days of controversy over remarks he made about the Middle East, federal Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff says he will visit Israel next month to "learn first-hand" about the Israeli view of the bombing of a Lebanese village. " http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419 And I could only but agree with Rae....although I keep in mind that this kind of bravado on Rae's part is a little bit too late...considering he was one of those who kept silent about the Liberal foreign critic. Iggy goes accusing Israel outright of war crimes....and then he goes on a mission to "learn first hand?" I thought you learn the facts first before making any judgments. “Does that mean that he is now going on a fact-finding mission after he was emphatic on declaring it a war crime? Isn't it a little too late for that?” asked B'nai Brith vice-president Frank Dimant. Mr. Rae said: “It's good of him to listen to the other side after he's made his judgment. It sounded to me like he did reach an unqualified judgment on the television show.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ So take your pick. Anti-Israel or anti-Semite? Maybe he is neither. It's just probably all about votes....and he'd considered Israelis or Jews...are expendable. He is back-tracking...only because of Harper. If Harper did not make that accusation, you think Iggy will go through all the trouble of finding out the facts about this war? That's why this should be an eye-opener for all minority groups. You just never know when the time will come...when you're considered "expendable."

Discussed? We have not had a real discussion. All you did was give your comment: that it's falsehood what Harper said. Please at least try to follow the discussion. I discussed why the idifference between 'Israel' and 'semite' is not mere nitpicking. Okay. But whether it be "anti-Semite" or "anti-Israel" really depends on Iggy's motive when he made that comment. If he is criticizing the Israeli government policy of how they handled the war...same way as he would criticize the Lebanese government (which btw he never did, right?)...or French government etc.., then we could say it is "anti-Israel" But if he is criticizing a nation for retaliating to terrorists....bearing in mind that the government is representative of the people...then I would say there is some anti-Semitism involved. For how can one really take the side of terrorists...and in a way that's what he is doing. If there should be any castigating to be done, the finger should definitely be first pointed at the government of Lebanon: why are you letting your citizens be used as shields by a terrorist organization? Why are you letting this happen? Do you think our Canadian troops should hide amongst civilians....especially among children... in Afghanistan to prevent any retaliations and escalating numbers of casualties among our soldiers?

In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed. Discussed? We have not had a real discussion. All you did was give your comment: that it's falsehood what Harper said.

Why do you say it is a falsehood? Because the Liberals are not anti-Israel. Even Iggy's comment is not 'anti-Israel'. Israel is more than the acts of its government. You can condemn a government without disliking a nation. Although saying Iggy's comment being not "anti-Israel" is also debatable....but we're just not referring to Iggy's comment, are we?

So? So, you seem to have a way of posting stuff aligned more with your biases than with the facts. In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed. You seem to choose incorrect terms to support your poor arguments. I call you on it. They were bullsh*t. Why were they "bullsh*t?"

And as a parent, how would you feel knowing that your religious leaders had been instructed to withold evidence of sexual abuse against children? How do YOU feel about EGALE wanting to abolish age of consent....so these religious leaders in Canada will not have the need to be allegedly "instructed to withold evidences of sexual abuse"...since it wouldn't be a crime anymore to diddle minors at the ripe age of 14...and those younger ages for pedophiles?

# ISNA urges all Muslims in the U.S. and Canada to exercise the utmost self-control and to never let their UNDERSTANDABLE ANGER lead to any un-Islamic and irresponsible act towards their fellow citizens. In fact, they should continue their ongoing dialogue with their Christian and Jewish friends, many of whom have condemned ISRAEL'S TERRORISM perpetrated UNDER THE GUISE OF "SELF-DEFENSE." For a while I was thinking gee, at least here's one that's speaking out. Then I got to this part. What do they mean by "understandable anger?" Why do they need to insert that in? "Israel's terrorism?" "Under the guise of self-defense?" If you're calling for calm and reason...why do they need to point those out? Looks like some group is trying to convince the world that they "denounce" the killing of Jews...then can't resist adding the very things that could and would INCITE! I get the feeling the speaker of this thing is doing a nudge-nudge-wink-wink..."let the world's pacifiers suck on this one fellas". Seems like this is just some double talk to me, Newbie!

Why do you say it is a falsehood?

Yes. He was responding to a reporter. That it was made "in passing" (slur or not)....means it was candid. UN-REHEARSED. I would call that a "plus." Oh yeah, definitely that's a plus for me! As for saying it...to me he did spelled it outright in just a few words...a very vivid and accurate description of how the Liberals treated the Jews. Whether he "spelled it out" or made "a passing slur"....the message was still clear. Speaking of rehearsals. Hang out with MDuffy Live and you'll notice something so obvious. About a week or so ago, started at the Commons the words "Harper is MEAN-SPIRITED" was first introduced. Then, surprisingly right after that...practically all Liberal representatives that appeared on MDuffy Live had been spouting the same line "Harper is mean-spirited" at every chance they got. They all looked like they were auditioning for the same role....everyone of them was reading from the same script! I can't help thinking of the flock of sheep in the movie "Babe." The leader says baaaa...everybody says baaaaa. The leader speaks "bo-ram-you." Everybody says "bo-ram-you." Remind me too of that great game, "Lemmings." I guess there goes, "nuanced." It's now passe.

So? The first time I heard of Harper's comment, the news anchor had used the word "anti-semite." You'll be nitpicking at exact meaning of words... to back up what? What issues are you talking about? Are we going to go the merry-go-round (as usual)....distracting from the real issue? I'm talking about Harper and his comment about the Liberals....that they were not baseless comments at all! It's understandable to get sidetracked...but c'mon....getting sidetracked by the proper usage of words? This brings to mind another topic in which someone tried to give me lessons on the proper usage of "eh?" And tried to dismiss my argument on the basis of my being an "American" because of the way I used "eh."

Betsy, you appear to live in an imaginary world all your own. First, Harper said 'anti-Israel', not 'anti-semite'. Second, he didn't 'spell it out', he made a passing slur. Third, it was a barefaced falsehood. No, you're the one who lives in a world Liberalism wants you to believe in. So you say anti-Israel....or anti-Semite....does it really matter? Harper's stance in the Francophonie conference amidst all other leaders of the world...of insisting that Israeli victims (meaning Jews!)...should be included.....along with lebanese victims. For me, that gesture alone speaks more than A THOUSAND PAGES OF FEEL-GOOD SPEECHES THE LIBERALS SPIN OUT THEIR PROPOGANDA MACHINES! That Harper's stance is quite eloquent enough!

All minority groups should stop and take notice of what's unfolding here. Take a closer look at the way the Liberals had treated another Minority Group: The Jews. And take a good look at the way Harper stood up for this group. Who knows maybe tomorrow...it will be your group who'd be treated the same way by the Liberals....and you'd be the one Harper will be standing up for. There will never be any EQUALITY...unless there is FAIRNESS.

That is why I find Harper comes out so refreshing. The way he fought for and got his way at the Francophonie....standing up for the casualties of Israel to be included too. And now, spelling outright the anti-Semitism that's pervading most of the Liberal contenders. I don't think I've ever seen a leader in the previous years make a stand the way he does.

And I AM APPALLED by the attitudes shown by all these Liberal LEADERSHIP FRONTRUNNERS! For a party that's purporting to be "brokers of peace".....they'd shown that either they are no more than bigots themselves (for seeming to have no problem with the idea that Hezbollah wants to exterminate Israel)...or they are incapable of seeing the whole picture. How can you possibly broker peace if you cannot even acknowledge what the real problem is all about? How can peace be achieved if what you want is for one people (Israel) to acquiesce quietly and agree to drop dead? If there is any bigotry around here...well it surely does not come from the section who wants to look at both sides with FAIRNESS! REAL FAIRNESS. And not just some lip service...or self-deceiving notion that actually spells out one thing: you really don't care.

If that's true Betsy, show me on these muslim sites where that is indicated.: http://www.macnet.ca/national/index.php http://www.cmcla.org http://www.icna.org http://isna.com Please do us all a favor and stop the generalization. Yes, there are radicals muslims that believe some crazy things, just as there are crazy and zealous Christians, Jews, and other religion fundamentalists. Your irrational conclusion does more harm than good. I do not believe that ALL Muslims personally would want to kill Jews! But I have yet to hear any denunciations from any spokespeople of the Muslim worlds....or any Imams...denouncing SPECIFICALLY those kill-the-Jews protests and rantings of extremists in warring countries. Oh yeah some go on tv denouncing violence....and saying oh our religion is a peaceful religion. But the actual war that just erupted in Lebanon...and the natural concern and fear of Jews from being slaughtered.....I've yet to hear that particular issue being addressed by any Muslim leaders....INCLUDING THE LIBERAL LEADERSHIP FRONTRUNNERS! So I'm a bigot if I say there is something definitely wrong about a people who seem to quietly agree to extremists speaking for the whole Muslim world? If they diasgree....why don't they speak up? I don't care to hear about the spouts of generalization....all I want to hear is a specific denunciation of violence against a particular group: the Jews. If being honestly frank about expressing my views based on what's happening is a form of bigotry....let me be a bigot then. I say I'll wear it as a badge of honor!