betsy

We know fraud happen in politics. That it does exists: But no other politcal party we know could churn them faster than the Liberals. Their "production" is quite unbelievable...they're so like into "manufacturing" and "whole sale!" So you begin to wonder: what is it about THE PARTY itself?

Actually, no, it doesn't. The request was based on your usage of the adverb "equally", not my misreading of the adjective you used to describe it. If it is equally inane/insane/preposterous/outrageous - call it whatever you want - then it stands to reason that there should be an equal number of child molestation accusations levied against the Conservatives as there have been fraud accusations levied against the Liberals. Since you have repeatedly claimed this to be case, you shouldn't have any difficulty substantiating it, so let's see that evidence. I don't think you understand what a parody is. But in either case, if something is equally as stupid (inane) as something else, then it does not logically follow that the two things must occur in equal numbers. I don't care to understand what YOU mean as a parody. You claimed yours to be a parody...I am not arguing about that! If you say so....then so be it. Although personally I think you just had a little explosive irrational "moment" there. But at least you seem to be calm and collected again. That's good. Did you do several deep breathings and successions of "ohhhhhmmmmmms?" Anyway back to the argument... Whether it's stupid or inane or something else.....it's clear: The Liberal Party seems to be a magnet for those...er...fraudulent individuals......

Then I guess it all boils down to individual translation of what is considered "evil." Just like how there are individual interpretation of "fairness." And this goes back to the topic. I would like to hope that most Canadians have a clear view of what it is. Harper only vocalized what some of us had been observing all along.

Muslims believe that all Jews must die! Jews do not think the same of Muslims. So trying to justify or muddle the reasons behind this little debate by comparison is nonsense. There is no comparison. I don't care how people worship. They can dance nude in the moonlight and braying at the moon for all I care. But I do take sides when someone talk of genocide. If it comes to choice....and God forbid, there should ever be any genocide at all...then I'd rather it happen to people with evil religious beliefs! To those who wish to kill others simply for the fact that they've been preached...and they believe that a certain race should not be allowed to live at all. And then I'd borrow Iggy's famous phrase...and perhaps..."I wouldn't lose any sleep over it."

Yours is a parody. But mine is not. I truly am just stating what seems to be an obvious fact: the Liberals and Fraud seem to go hand-in-hand. It's like "Jack and Jill" or Roast Turkey and Cranberry Sauce!

This could get ugly. Just what they need in the Liberal camp. Obviously this has come about because Bob had become a front runner. What is it about fraud and the Liberals? They seem to be stuck together like siamese twins....one can't live without the other!

Well...when you breath the word "fraud" right next to a Liberal....what are the chances it means goodbye? They've just associated that dreaded word with Rae. I guess we'll all be waving bye-bye.

Just heard it on CTV Newsnet. Ignatieff, Kennedy and Dion had filed a complaint against Bob Rae, regarding his delegates in BC. Apparently there was fraud involved in getting those delegates. Looks like the gloves are off.

If the women feel so strongly about it, well they are so free to exercise their freedom to choose. Remove the veil or stomp out of there.

Like allowing a dagger or a machete as part of a fashion statement? Amazing how you conveniently ignore the possible reasons why some of us are agreeing with Straw. That this has nothing to do with just simple dressing up. My point for this is that Straw has the right to insist on what would make him feel secured about. It's not up to you to say that Straw is wrong because there is no harm. You may be right or wrong....but the point is, you are not the one standing on his shoes and meeting with those women. It is not up to you to decide if there is any harm or not. The threats of Al Qaeda that targets England...and the recent bombing of London subway...are being taken seriously. And they should. Terrorism does not necessarily mean "suicide bombing." There could be other forms of terrorism. And if I put myself in Straw's shoes....I too, would want to see the face of whom I'm speaking to. It is not up to you to vouch for these women...you don't even know them!

There's something about an over-indignant Gerry and his obsessed trial-on-board and condemnations about people he doesn't like. Give me some time...I'm still trying to figure it out how the pet EGALE will fit into all this. After all, if Gerry can equate Israel with the Nazi...I guess we can mold anything to the way we want it to be....by sheer creativity! Or a good toke?

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible". Alright then, I'll try again. Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever? Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are self-styed leftist shills unworthy of serious considerations by rational and sober people. They are a joke.

Who's talking about fashion? "It's there to prevent people from doing harm to others--no other reason." I say, amen to that! Boy am I glad we at least agree on that one, Bubber.

Well, you're the one who suggested it! Asking me..."unless if you'd like to make one." Of course that's just too good for me to pass up! As for understanding freedom....you didn't even realize there is conformity that comes with our freedom. What do you think? Can we poo just about anywhere we please? You seem to have confused people's freedom with birds' freedom.

I like this way of thinking. Husband holds wife hostage, holds wife in front of him and threatens cops. Cops shoot wife. Wife is to blame. Afterall, she chose this man in the first place. Or just shoot the wife to incapacitate her...then go for the husband. The movie Speed had two rescue guys talking a version of that kind of scenario..."taking the hostage out of the equation", they say. You definitely have to go for the husband! You've got to go for the root (no pun intended)!

Anyway, what do you do if your enemies hide behind civilians? And there were civilians who harbor them...providing protection by letting them hide amongst them. So instead, why didn't the Liberal leadership candidates criticize Lebanon for letting that happen? Are they incapable of discerning that fact?

As a Conservative supporter I hope Iggy keeps telling (his version of) the truth. Unfortunately, he might do himself so much damage with his *truth-telling* to cost himself the nomination. Getting Iggy out of the race is the best thing that can happen for the Conservatives!

All wrong of course. There's no law to not wear a veil. Unless you'd like to make one. There's no law against wearing shoes inside a house either. Someone comes to my house, I'd expect her to remove her shoes and not walk all over my carpet. Anyway, who was asking to have an audience with whom? Who was making the request to speak with whom? As for making it a law not to wear veils....especially in public places....I think that'd be a good idea.

All wrong of course. What is all wrong?

You're actually bringing whole two good points: "conform" and "freedom". One has to conform to qualify for freedom? Or it (the freedom) also means the right to not conform? Which of the two? Don't we all conform to qualify for freedom? We follow our society's laws in order to enjoy freedom. If you break the law and murder....you lose your freedom. And if you go back out to rejoin society...you are faced with the same rules. Conform or back you go to jail! If someone wants to exercise his freedom to not conform.....what's stopping him? He knows the terms. It's a matter of choice. They know the culture of the west! They know that coming to the west is like going into the devil's den.....isn't it?

You're actually bringing whole two good points: "conform" and "freedom". One has to conform to qualify for freedom? Or it (the freedom) also means the right to not conform? Which of the two? Don't we all conform to qualify for freedom? We follow our society's laws in order to enjoy freedom. If you break the law and murder....you lose your freedom. And if you go back out to rejoin society...you are faced with the same rules. Conform or back you go to jail! If someone wants to exercise his freedom to not conform.....what's stopping him? He knows the terms. It's a matter of choice.

Hmmm...you got to hand it to Graham. It's no easy job. I would think he's trying his best to do some damage control. Surprisingly, the 4 frontrunners of the leadership race have all been mum about this Liberal foreign affairs spokesman MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj. So...just shows what all their indignation is all about: losing votes!

There is something odd about the Liberal's attitudes towards the Jews. "Now THIS little story is hitting the newswires ...as slowly and quietly as cold molasses oozing out of a jar in the Arctic. VANCOUVER (CP) - Divisions within the Liberal party over the Middle East deepened Tuesday with two leadership contenders calling for the resignation of the party’s deputy foreign affairs critic. Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett said fellow Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj cannot retain his post as a foreign affairs spokesman after declaring that Canada should negotiate directly with Hezbollah as part of a bid to restore peace in Lebanon The Liberals are facing particularly harsh criticism in recent weeks in relation to their Mideast policy - or lack thereof - in the midst of a leadership race. [...] A number of prominent members of Canada’s Jewish community, including power couple Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman, have left the party over its perceived lack of support for Israel’s bombardment of Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon. While the media didn’t exactly say so, if I understand correctly, the Liberal Party is splitting up in an horrendous and embarrassing explosion of animosity and division and will cease to function as a united force forever more, as it is now but an abysmal political disaster area which can’t possibly form government as they are inept and can’t even contain their animus toward each other and put forth a cohesive foreign policy. But as long as they’re not “angry”! As we know, the Conservative Party has been imploding since its inception a few years ago, according to hundreds of liberal media stories. As if to help me prove it their bias, the headline for the above story has nothing to do with the massive split and embarrassment within the Liberal Party as I indicated—it was about the Conservative Party and what one of them (quite accurately) said. It was: Harper spokesman likens Hezbollah to German Nazi party of the 1930s. http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index...tire_left_wing/

Well I don't think Harper's comments are baseless. Politically Incorrect The new anti-Semitism and the Liberals by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press March 8, 2004 The "new" anti-Semitism is the expression of hostility against Jews by expressing that hostility not at the Jews themselves but at the State of Israel. Unlike the "old" anti-Semitism that came mainly from those on the right of the political spectrum, the "new" comes primarily from the left; the liberal elite who condescendingly speak it in the name of anti-racism and anti-colonization. This type of anti-Semitism is politically correct. When those that espouse these anti-Semitic sentiments are challenged, they defend themselves by saying that they are merely criticizing Israel, something they have every right to do, and not the Jewish people themselves. Merely criticizing the government of Israel is, of course not anti-Semitic. Canadians have the right to be critical of Israel as they have the right to criticize any other country, including Canada. The anti-Semitic aspect of condemning Israel comes into play when that country is held to a much higher or different standard than other countries are. It occurs, for example, when people vigorously criticize Israel for erecting the security fence while remaining silent on the gross human rights violations of other countries that routinely engage in such things as slavery, use of child soldiers, torture and political repression. There have been two recent incidents in the past few months involving members of the governing Liberals. The first occurred when there was a terrorist threat to El Al Airlines that caused one of its flights to divert from Pearson International in Toronto to Hamilton. The immediate response of the then Transport Minister, David Collenette, was to say that perhaps the status of El Al in Canada should be reconsidered. Collenette blamed the victim for the incident and if he had any concerns about terrorists hiding near Pearson with handheld surface-to-air missiles, he kept that to himself. Reconsidering "El Al’s position in Canada" could only mean restricting the airline’s rights in Canadian airspace. It’s hard to imagine that the former Minister would have made the same comments had the airline involved been French or British or American. Israel was being held to a different standard. The second incident occurred on February 17 in a statement made in the House of Commons by Pat O’Brien, the Liberal MP from London-Fanshawe. O’Brien criticized the security fence that Israel is currently constructing. Adding that he was neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel, O’Brien said that the construction of the wall "reduces the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the status of concentration camps". The next day, Liberal Art Eggleton stated in the House that Pat O’Brien’s remarks about concentration camps "made a mockery of the Holocaust". O’Brien, who carefully drafted the statement that he made, makes no apologies for his concentration camp remarks. He reiterated that there was nothing anti-Semitic in his remarks, despite the fact that his comments were hurtful to some Jews who had been in or who had had relatives in concentration camps. O’Brien argued that he had never used the word "Nazi" and that other countries have had concentration camps. A few weeks before his statement, the CBC’s Don Cherry had said that NHL players who wore visors were mainly "Europeans and French guys". All hell broke loose when Cherry made his "anti-French" comments. When Cherry’s remarks were put to O’Brien, he just laughed and said that Cherry was a redneck but not a racist. On the other hand, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women, Jean Augustine, refused to comment on the reference O’Brien made about concentration camps while stating that she is passionate about multiculturalism, equality and human rights. This silence has to be contrasted with her statement in response to Don Cherry’s comments when she said: "The government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others", a remark that CFP columnist, Klaus Rohrich, correctly concluded could have been made by Hitler or Mussolini. Unlike Pat O’Brien who lacks his party’s trademark political correctness, Augustine applied a double standard to the remarks made by O’Brien and Cherry. The government of tolerance will not tolerate comments from Don Cherry that might insult a few French-Canadians while O’Brien’s comments that insulted a few Jewish Canadians, who are in no way responsible for the policies and practices of the Israeli government, are simply not worthy of comment. As far as the Canadian government is concerned, Jews, much like Americans, are not accorded the same level of protection from "statements that create dissonance" as other groups in this country are. Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work as appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com and The Rant. He can be reached [email protected] http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/weinreb030804.htm

At least at the Francophonie, Harper insisted that casualties on both sides (Israel and Lebanon) be recognized! And they followed as Harper wished! Now, that's leadership! He can lead other nations too! If it was a Liberal PM....huh, they'll most probably go the other way...and suggest a punishment for Israel!