Rue

Of course not. Governments manipulate ordinary people all the time precisely because they care what government says. Governments get re-elected telling people things people want to believe. Everyone says they don't trust politicians but they buy into their messages every time. Ontario is proof of that as demonstrated in how they relected the Liberals. Trudeau is engaging in a feel good campaign to get ethnics to believe in him. He's running himself about as a Messiah, God figure of the masses and I think many ethnics are buying into his pandering. The whole point of his spending future revenue to stimulate the economy is based on people believing you can buy your way out of economic turmoil. I am not sure what planet you live in, but the fact people are quick to say they don't trust politicians does not believe they don't buy into their crap and believe it

When Marcus comes on the forum and engages in his repeat piss on Israel threads and responses, its not whining. When you come on this thread and express an opinion he disagrees with its whining. Now that said, by the time Community Leaders are stuck with the negative impact of poorly thought out immigration policy its too late. The time to discuss such issues is long before it becomes a community issue or even an actual immigration policy.Idiots like Trudeau don't think. They spit out whatever sound bite sounds good at the moment to pander to a potential voter and then delegative any negative consequence of what they said to another layer of government other than their own. Its why provinces develop isolationist tendencies. They see people like Trudeau and his version of government working at direct cross purposes to their best interests and he does. When you get big city Mayors claiming to be sanctuary cities its crass politics at its worse. Their mayors see the influx of immigrants as potential voters to pander to and a source to get federal funding. At the provincial level it causes huge negative consequences to education and health services because of the sky rocketing demand for both and an inability to keep up with the demand without increasing taxes since the federal government does not provide funding for health, education or even municipal needs. I argue immigration is not the issue-the size of how many you take in, the time period in which you give to assimilate them may be. Immigration is not the issue-the kind of immigrants you bring in, can be. How you define the KIND of immigrant that will be most likely to contribute and build not drag down and weaken your society is a tough one. Any attempt at defining criteria is going to be questioned as unfair by potential immigrants and too lenient by pre-existing Canadians. As well you can create all the criteria you want, but it means nothing if as I s the case now, you have a Prime Minister like Trudeau, who ignores it. Trudeau has completely ignored existing immigration laws add welcomed illegal migrants telling them to just illegally cross the border. His speeches are clearly coded to tell migrants to come while at the same time trying to sound like he's not saying this to non immigrant Canadians. Its not working. That double speak is not working. On the day he supposedly said he was sending someone who was sending someone Haitiens to Florida to explain Canadian immigration laws, he also showed up at a Tamil community photoop stating again everyone was welcome to come to Canada. Trudeau is engaged in a deliberate premeditated policy of ethnic pandering. His handlers have said the next vote will be won getting the ethnic vote from cities and that is what Trudeau is counting on and cultivating. The problem with that kind of ethnic pandering is two things. It creates a passive aggressive reaction not openly expressed but is just beneath the surface. Its like pus that builds up under a wound. That build up if not relieved grows and the longer it grows, the more infectious it becomes spreading and when it then does erupt it causes far much more damage than if you had dealt with it quickly at the get go and the first signs of problems. Its far too late after you create a tent city to then pretend you can keep taking people in. Its too late. The damage is done. The race conflicts now start. They start off with rallies of extreme left and right wingers at gatherings and then these demos grow in size and place and rate. All this time, the issue is not being addressed. You have Trudeau prancing about telling people all is fine and immigration can come unlimited. Then the unthinkable happens. Someone shoots someone, a car goes in a crowd, that repeats a copy cat incident and so on. If we are or were to take in immigrants of any kind, why did this government not anticipate or react to or have preparations in place when Trump said what he did? How did Trudeau address his desire to increase refugees? He never increased funding to the Refugee and Hearings Board or refugee centres and he never increased funding so that non profit organizations and churches deal with the increased amounts. Now he has a tent city which is a direct result of doing nothing. He had one phony photo op meeting last week and didn't even sit at the table of his alleged meeting instead prancing about for photo ops and then leaving never discussing the issue.

Yes when multi-culturalism becomes to extreme its as bad as if there is no multi-culturalism at all. Too much or too little of anything that influences society can be a problem. Its all in how you balance it. Of course its also very much a phenomena that is inevitable. You can't stop nature from diversifying to avoid becoming extinct. Its like the movement of water. Too much you have flooding, too little you have a draught, either extreme its devastating to survival.

Multicullturalism of course is not the actual issue, the amount of emphasis put on it and how its applied can or can not be. Any society that doesn't breed outside its genetic pool or bring in fresh ideas and approaches, dies out. Unfortunately before it dies out it, it produces some people with pointed heads and thus th eneed for KKK hoods. " So when I told Taxme him he was a cone head, he panicked and denied being Jewish....so I said Taxme calm down you can't put ice cream on a Jew....." Barry "Snow" Cohen, 6345

Well it certainly applies to you with Jews and Israelis now doesn't it. He didn't actually refer to all Arabs, just one, like I am now. Or are you suggesting Trudeau does not pander to ethnics by choosing minorities with a direct and vested interest in the topics they provide advise on, i.e., his Immigration Minister, his Middle East advisor. Give it a rest, If Trudeau had chosen a Jewish person not Omar Alleghbra as his Middle East advisor, and that individual was as anti Palestine and anti Muslim as Alleghbra is anti Israeli and antii semitic, you'd be the first on here slurring him for being a Jew and demanding his resignation..

A lot of false stories have been spread about Israel supporting or creating Hezbollah, the PA, the PLO, Hamas. Al Quaeda, on and on. Israel has always provided humanitarian aid. It provides it in Syria right now. That led to accusations it supports Al Nusra which it does not. Israel's humanitarian aid and where it goes is not exactly a state secret: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Aid/Pages/Israel_humanitarian_aid.aspx Now you have to understand that in the Middle East the worst possible insult that can be made about you as a Muslim is that you accept help from a Jew of any kind not just an Israeli. Hamas. Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra. the PA, all have accused each other of having been created by or being controlled by or operating for Israel. It is all part of the rhetoric between feuding Muslim terrorists and factions. Its been going on since 1949. When Israel was first created, certain families in Jordan actually donated land, good farm land to holocaust refugees and were killed for doing so. Arab Israelis, Beduin Israelis, Druze Israelis have fought in the Israeli Armed Forces. Palestinians have always been given access for treatment for their children or seniors especially for cancer related diseases, diabetes and heart disease or things like malaria. If it got out Arabs and Jews got along and are capable of living peacefully the very terror cells that depend on them not living peacefully would lose their very purpose for existing and so its crucial they pump the internet, airwaves, media with fabricated conspiracy alliances with Zionists, etc. When I lived in Israel as a student I volunteered bringing medical supplies to people in the PLO from the Israeli military for things like impitago (skin rash on the face from dirty hands) snake and spider venom, needles to lance boils, talcum powder for babies, sanitary napkins, toe nail clippers, flea powder, and so on. When the PLO had members who basically worked as social workers back in those days, the IDF regularly gave them medical supplies. It was no secret. In Gaza it was no secret, Israel funded hundreds of grass roots charities all tied to the Muslim Brotherhood who also started Hamas. Why? Because these charities unlike the PLO were not corrupt. They engaged in direct aid to the poor building them homes, toilets, roads, schools, hospitals. Israel of course supported this. What better way to show your neighbour you wanted to live next to them peacefully. Thousands of Palestinians came in daily from the West Bank and Gaza to work in Israel. What the Muslim extremists on this forum will never admit is when Palestinians did not engage in violence and terror against Israel, Israel was a good neighbour. Grass roots projects were done. I witnessed first hand Palestinians and Israeli Jews working side by side building projects and sharing electricity and water. What happened tragically is that after I left a new militant wing won over Hamas's upper echelon from its Egyptian wing and the first thing it did was start killing any Palestinian who refused to stop working on Israel. To kill them they would put tires around their head and light them on fire. It used to shove poles with Israeli flags up the buttox of Palestinians, pull out their colons and leave them on the street bleeding to death like that. They blew up the roads, schools, greenhouses, mosques, anything showing peaceful cooperation. Then Hamas went to war with the PA over the Gaza because Arafat was corrupt. Arafat stole all the foreign aid money and left his people starving while his ban accounts in France and Switzerland overflowed Arafat was untouchable. He travelled with an East German bodyguard and East German Stasni assigned to protect him and he was also protected by La Deuxieme Bureau, France's equivalent to he CIA and the KGB. He made a fortunate using his protection to smuggle heroin and hash hish from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria out to Marseilles, France and on to New York City. DeGaulle cultivated Arafat to get French contracts. Arafat was in fact chosen to head the PLO because his drug caravans gave him contacts in all Arab states. The PLO was always an umbrella organization of loosely knit terror cells with only one thing in common, their hatred of Israel. Arafat was a myth created by the Western media because it was too difficult to figure out who was leader of all the cells in the PLO network. The leaders and their alliances would change constantly. Hamas was a Muslim Brotherhood creation. It was not affiliated with the Mullah of Jerusalem and his Palestinian nationals and it was that Mullah who lived as a guest of Hitler during WW2 and after the war fled to Iraq and had picked the Egyptian, Yasir Arafat to head the Palestinian national movement. In fact the Muslim Brotherhood wished nothing to do with Arafat because it was well known he was a homosexual and selling drugs both not things religious Muslims would tolerate. If you lived in the Middle East you would be well aware of all this. The alliances between Muslim factions both extreme and semi moderate were always and have always changed. The only thing that kept the Muslim world unified for years was Israel. That was the only thing they could all agree on, i.e., hating. Now that's not the case. The civil war between Shiites and Sunnis delayed for about 50 years by its mutual hatred of Israel has now refocused on each other. The reason for that is that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE saw Iran financing Muslim militants designed to cause civil wars and overthrow their governments. Lebanon became the first theatre of civil war between Shiite and Sunni. In fact Syria is 90% Sunni. A tiny sect of Muslims not even considered Muslims by the Sunnis, the Alawites which Assad and his predecessor father were from, used an alliance with the Shiites in Lebanon, the Hezbolllah, created by Iran, to prop their power. The Alawites are a mystic sect and if the Shiites didn't have the Sunnis even more and find them a useful prop, they would have wiped them out. I can tell you the only true alliances Israel has ever had in the Middle East is with Beduins, Druze, Kurds, Berbers, Coptic Christians, and the Bahaiis. It has made mutual relartions with all these groups and Druze and Beduin have fought for Israel. Assyrian Christian and Coptic Christians do not consider Israel their enemy and they have been targeted in Syria and Egypt by extremist Muslims. Bahaiis were targeted for death in Iran accused of being Zionist collaborators because their head Temple is in Haifa. The Bahaiis are pacifists and do not side with anyone. Israel has always supported the Kurds because they have been targeted for genocide by Iran, Turkey and Iraq (Hussein) and when Hussein started gassing their villages to kill thousands at once, Israel morally said, it could not stand by and watch Kurds be gassed to death. Turkey turned on Israel when Israel openly commemorated the Armenian genocide by Turkey. Within the Sunni Muslim sects they have hatred for Ismaili and Ammidyah Muslims and other smaller sects and do not conside Shiites true Muslims and the Shiites feel the same way in reverse. There is no constant theme of alliances in the Middle East. They change every day. Today's enemy is tomorrow's ally is the next day's enemy again. Alliances come and go with the sand dunes. Actually when you track most stories about Zionist Muslim alliances in invariably leads to one of two places, the Syrian Ministry of Communications or the Iranian government's propaganda branch. The only supposed secret relations were with King Hussein who used to drive into Jerusalem and meet regularly with Golda Maer. As well the King of Morrocco for years acted as a liaison to he Arab world to Israel. Israel allied with Hamas. Uh no. That comes from the same place as Zionists were allied with Hitler. Horseshit false stories, all debunked and traced to Russian or Syrian-Iranian sources. The thing is though, the scripts continue. They get recycled on the internet fueled by no Nazi groups the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, all who have vested interest in inciting distrust between Muslims and hatred of Israel.

I will address a couple of issues. In regards to comments about disaster relief in Haiti its too easy once a disaster has struck to in hindsight point out what disaster relief has done wrong, i.e., how money has been spent on things other than direct relief to pedestrians. This article: http://aid.works/2016/11/how-much-aid-is-going-to-haiti-tons-and-thats-the-problem/ is a good article on explaining how difficult it is to accurately get an accounting of what happens once relief money starts coming in. Certainly we've hear of reports of corruption with the Haitien government, private businesses rebuilding Haiti for profit, and excessive administration costs in ngo's. However to say its all been wasted is properly inaccurate and it does not address the migration issue of Haitiens from the US to Canada because earthquake or no earthquake they would have left. Trying to even begin to discuss the reasons for poverty in Haiti is complex. Here is just one article that provides a snapshot analysis of the origins of some of its issues: http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/haiti/misctopic/leftover/whypoor.htm That said in regard to the hostility or prickly relationship with the Dominicans next door -those Dominicans were colonized by Spain, Haiti by France and the two colonial sites of French and Spanish were often at war with one another and that then carried on in the subsequent history of both nations.. Dominicans see themselves as superior to Haitiens as they are heavily Catholic which taught them to consider Haitiens and their animistic and voodoo religious practices imferior. Also there were pirates attracted to both ends of the Island of Hispaniola shared by both nations also triggering wars between them. I've over-simplified it in an effort to summarize it for discussion purposes. Haiti and the Dominican Republic have actually had border wars over land and poor Haitiens trying to get into the Dominican Republiuc. Here is the point, Haiti is being rebuilt, very slowly, but its being rebuilt. Haiti actually hosts more ngo's per capita than any other country in the world. Here's another article on the relief going on that discusses the good and the bad: http://www.beyondtheheadlines.org/is-aid-the-cure-or-the-disease/ All that said its unrealistic to think Haiti will ever be a paradise . Its always going to produce unskilled labourers seeking entry to North America. Many of the Haitiens now on the way to Canada were in the US as illegal migrants PRIOR to the earthquake. They have headed for Canada fearing Trump will deport them all. Say what you want about Trump, his bellicose speeches have triggered an exodus of illegal migrants to Canada. He's playing Trudeau exactly how Castro once played the US and dumped 250,000 Cubans into the US emptying his prisons and mental hospitals onto the streets of Miami. Haitiens have always tried to head to Florida for a chance at work. Now they are coming to Canada because Trudeau holds a flame to the moths promising the, utopia. Trudeau knew his words would trigger an avalanche of fleeing migrants-either that or we have to believe Justin Trudeau is a bread dead shmuck and a half. Wait he is. Ok he's both. So anyways this brain dead shmuck and a half , His living in a pampered world means he has no clue what it is like on the streets and in the Montreal neighbourhoods where Haitiens will add to the overcrowding triggering hostility by non Haitien Quebecers INCLUDING other immigrants, refugees, who also hate them and are just as racist. You think there is no racism between French speaking Muslim migrants and Haitiens? Try again and understand French Muslims coming to Quebec come from societies where they were also taught blacks/non Muslim Africans are inferior-its not just white Quebecois with these beliefs. The idiot called Justin this weekend was in Niagra taking photo-ops and again spewing his let the masses eat cake speech extolling the virtues of being a welcoming mat for the world pandering at the end of the day to Tamils. I hope to hell immigrants see through Trudeau's simpering pandering campaign and throw him out on his phony ass. I've already stated the ngo's in Haiti should not be hiring Americans, Canadians and instead hiring Haitiens as much as possible to do the work. What's happening in Haiti is similar to Iraq. For profit construction companies come in, inflate their service costs since its government paying them, and bring their own employees while Haitiens sit around literally doing not a damn thing. That's wrong. At the grass roots level Haitiens need to be educated on how to dig, drill, build, lay brick, lay down latrines, build water plants and toilets. No one is doing that. That's not the fault of Haitiens. It is the fault of jack ass liberals who have never handled a shovel a day in their life thinking they can tell Haitiens how to rebuild. Haitiens should be directly involved in the rebuild and they are not. Instead of having them sit in tents collecting welfare, train them in construction work and send them back to Haiti to rebuild it.

Nice to see 2 board members who know how to debate, i.e., Argus + Michael Hard. Good salient points from both sides of the table.

Think of me as penicillin. Sure I give you the runs but in the long run you'll be better off. I mean look at what happened to Robert Mugabe after he refused my help.

You can't absolutely control people. You can temporarily impede or contain their movement but you can't absolutely control them. I learned that from watching Corgis, and other herding dogs. They can "control" the movement of the direction of sheep or cattle or cows but they can't stop a bull or renegade cow with foot and mouth disease or a sheep with rabies or distemper or a brain tumour. They can steer and direct them but they have their limits. If society was perfectly controlled like you think it was you couldn't do many of the things you can do if you choose to. People who are controlled delegate the control, sometimes intentionally, other times unintentionally but none-the-less because of decisions they made to avoid doing it themselves. We always have a choice. You do. I do. There are people every day on this planet who choose not to be controlled. Control is something that is not an absolute physical thing-that's your material world bias speaking that's conditioned you to believe that-control is a state of mind. When the doors of the concentration camps were left open and the Nazis left, holocaust survivors sat and did not move. You can choose to turn off the internet, cell phone, radio, walk instead of drive a car, not smoke or drink, or buy certain things. The question is do you want to make certain choices. i.e., sacrifices which will diminish the control or even unshackle you completely..... Oh hell man you can't drive in traffic without being controlled of course... but if you walk, or take your bicycle you are not as controlled. Depends on what you want in your life. The more material you want, the more the consequences of owning that material controls your choices of idependence. Hey man, some Tibetan monk up in the mountains have decided control was an illusion they let go. Their brain literally has no limits as to where it takes them. Then again such monks live non material lives. Its kind of hard for you and me to get to that state when we are in an environment that tells us but does not ask us how to live So you have choices. You have the choice to accept being told what to do about certain things, or say ah fuck that and decide to do without certain things. Best analogy is food. Does your choice of food control you or the other way around? How about sex as another example? You can choose to do without it but if you choose it, there is always some condition or control attached to you by the person giving it. I always say the only honest people out there when it comes to control are prostitutes-they make it clear what the price is for your choice. Think of life as a series of visits to hookers and decide which ones you will pay for and which ones you will pass on. Also think of your life as a series of possible encounters ith sexually transmitted diseases when it comes to deciding how controlled you want yourself to be. The ultimate freedom is bound to give you syphilis sooner so sometimes you do need to play it safe and compromise on just how much flexibility you have. I would make a great rubber salesman.

Well since you are part of the "we" answer the question. No but you will stereotype people you do not know but think you do and arbitrarily ascribe to them negative characteristics. That simply renders you a bigot with nothing constructive to say. It also answers your first question above. You rape and don't apologize because you are oblivious to the consequences of your behaviour which reduces the value of human life and give s you the excuse to mock it and dehumanize it.

You sound depressed from dwelling on the negative, i.e., idiots, what's not working, how ugly humans can be, etc. Yoh turn off that station. I mean it. Turn off the internet, the cell phone, the noise. Refocus to something simple like walking a dog, patting a cat, riding a horse, planting something, painting or building something, cleaning something up, feeding someone at a food shelter, visiting old people in an old age home or a vet in a hospital or becoming a big brother. I am serious. I know it sounds full of shit, but sometimes just refocusing your brain on doing something you know is right and does good, is all it takes. Revolutions get started by the smallest of positive actions. My only other comment is naked women. I find when the world is driving me nutzo the most helpful thing I can do is imagine the ideal woman naked. Really it helps. Just don't join any cults man. They make you get silly hair cuts and chant weird things.

Well I could produce photos and you probably could not. Trust me. Jews and Arabs range from pale white with blue eyes and blonde hair and small noses to coal black with every [physical characteristic you can think of. You'd know that if you lived in the Middle East. But I do understand its a very subjective thing. What you are talking about are secondary physical characteristics such as skin tone, lip size, nose shape, hair texture, freckles, hair colour, body type, ear size and structure and believe me there were so many movements of warriors and nomads across Africa and Asia that every genetic characteristic was mixed. Jews and Arabs are semites. Its not a race. It refers to common roots back to certain societies and languages. I think if I were to take you to Israel and stick you down in a crowd, the most likely people you might notice would be Felashie Jews but even then they may not be obvious only some. You would not know the difference between a Mulatto, African, Arab, Tsfardic Jew or an Ashkanazi Jew or certain Palestinians. One reason for this is when Alexander swept through the Middle East his soldiers raped a lot of women and mixed so called white secondary physical characteristics into the blood pool. The biological reality is there is no such thing as race. A person who is coal black traditional African looking may have more genetic material in common with some white Swedish looking person then another black person. The characteristics you talk of are in fact secondary and they are meaningless in terms of biology and genetics What is interesting is you can trace back Ashkenazi (white) Jews, Tsfardic (Arab) Jews and Felashie (Ethiopian) Jews as well as African, Indian and even Chinese Jews to the Middle East through blood testing. Doesn't make Jews a race but it can tell you where they geographically originated from. I really myself having lived in Israel don't see much of a difference between Israelis and Arabs except whether they hate Israel for being Jewish or not. I define Jews and Arabs that same way because physically I don't see a differences in culture or religion or language even others do, but politics yes. I don't think Argus is being racist, but is actually being the exact opposite saying, its bullshit calling Jews or Arabs races, this is about religious and political values. That said hell Spanky I some days have no idea what the phack anyone is anymore in terms of ancestry and to tell you the truth I just want to know, will they get my order right at Tim Horton's. That sounded politically inappropriate but I mean it. I don't care if you are white or brown, if you phack my double double up, I get mad. Now what is interesting is there is "Hudson Jones" will come on this forum talking about a "Zionist narrative" but in fact there is none. What he actually refers to is the anti Zionist narrative he or " Marcus " or whatever name is producing it at the moment wants you to read and that is the false narrative that Jews are not from the Middle East but colonialists. Its probably one of the most idiotic things ever said about any ethnic people but its done quite well depending on the world's ignorance of Jewish history. In the anti Zionist narrative- a displaced refugee from Nazi Europe is a European colonialist, but the Arab League nations, all colonial states created by Britain and France and then propped by them. Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, were not colonial when they tried to prevent Jews escaping from the holocaust and European persecution. People fleeing colonial persecution according to this narrative are colonialists. 950,000 Tsfrsadic Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab world when it could not defeat a tiny group of Jews in Israel forcing 800,000 of them to Israel are falsely described as colonial invaders. Arabs who flooded Palestinian because of British immigration policies displacing Palestinians are now simply called Palestinians, but if a Jew came to Palestine he automatically displaced Palestinians and is a colonial invader. In this anti Zionist narrative, there is the deliberate re-writing of history that Jews never originated in the Middle East prior to any Muslim or so called Arab (person of the Arabian peninsula who went on to become the Beduins of today). The Arabs of today are probably not true Arabs in the sense of having descended from the Beduins. In this anti Zionist narrative, Muslims can have as many states as they desire, but no Jew can have any state. When you trace that belief back you will find it comes from how Sharia law is interpreted to define any non Muslim as a dhimmi, an inferior who can not be equal to a Muslim and therefore own land let alone govern themselves. The anti Zionist narrative will not acknowledge the Muslim religious beliefs inherent in denying any Jew the right to a state or even owning land. Muslims will discuss that amongst themselves openly but will never have the integrity to come on this forum and state their Muslim religious beliefs are what's behind their pissing on Israel campaign. This comes down pure and simple to religious views creating discrimination by Muslims against Jews which is turned by Muslims into some anti colonial battle. Jews were persecuted by the very colonial empires Arabs teamed up with in an effort to wipe Jews out. Its ironic you listen to someone like Hot Enough accusing Zionism of being a genocide plan. It is past moronic. Its repeated though over and over to try turn survivors of genocide into people committing it. It tries to have you focus away from the fact that Arabs in fact sided with Hitler and assisted the genocide of Jews. It is even more moronic when one looks at the rate of Arab Israeli population growth in Israel and on the West Bank and in Gaza. If you look at the sheer population growth of Palestinians and Arab Israelis since 1949 the idiot comment Hot Enough spews about genocide of Palestinians is rendered the moronic accusation it is but its repeated weekly along with the Israe is racist, Israeis are colonialists horseshit. Trust me though on this one thing. No one can look at an Arab or Israeli and immediately see any difference physically and a day in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, you won't readily see any physical difference and trust me when you are born in the Middle East your religion or language is not necessarily the dividing factor, its your proximity to water believe it or not. More wars between Muslims then between Muslims and non Muslims and yes its often about their religious views, but a lot of time its over water as well. If I put Algerian, Morroccan Libyan Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian, Iranian, Indian, Latino, Irish, Italian, Greek, women in a room I bet I could fool you every time. What makes them all gorgeous is the very fact they are mixed. With due respect neo Nazis tend to get very in-bred which explains the pointed heads. As for Black Lives matter members, they flare their nostrils and its got nothing to do with them being black.

You will now note the thread has nothing to do with what it claimed to discuss and everything to do with spreading recycled propaganda denying Israel should exist as a Jewish stat e repeating a script that has been used every week on this forum for over 10 years. The script is repetitive and exactly the same. The people producing it for this forum don't change it. They are so lazy they just recycle it using new poster names. The posters believe if you post a lie continuously it will be believed and win over new haters. If of course does not. It just attracts people like me debuking it over and over. source: http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/ " The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss Anti-Israel activists often use doctored maps to show Israel’s supposed malfeasance over the past century. Such claims are made by people who, in the best case, have no knowledge of the facts, and in the worst case, have no moral compass. You can’t walk very far on an American or European university campus these days without encountering some version of the “Palestinian Land Loss” maps. This series of four—occasionally five—maps purports to show how rapacious Zionists have steadily encroached upon Palestinian land. Postcards of it can be purchased for distribution, and it has featured in paid advertisements on the sides of buses in Vancouver as well as train stations in New York. Anti-Israel bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Juan Cole have both posted versions of it, and it occasionally creeps into supposedly reputable media sources, like Al Jazeera English. Indeed, it recently appeared as a “Chart of the Day” in the UK’s respected magazine New Statesman. Beneath it was a tiny line of text listing its sources as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and a CIA atlas from 1973. Given that the maps included information far more recent than 1973, the source struck me as slightly dubious. I contacted the staff writer who created the feature and asked him about it. He was very reluctant to admit that he had lifted it from anti-Israel propaganda sources, so he directed me to the 1973 CIA atlas. Unfortunately, nothing like the series appears in the CIA World Factbook and nothing like it could have appeared in an atlas published decades before several of the events it claims to portray. The writer then apologized for not being able to track down his sources any further and explained that he no longer works at New Statesman. He has moved on to The Guardian, and given that particular publication’s attitude toward Israel, he should have no trouble fitting in. There is a reason why those who make use of these maps avoid examining their provenance or proving their accuracy: The maps are egregiously, almost childishly dishonest. But they have become so ubiquitous that it is worth taking the time to examine them, and what their dishonesty can teach us about the Palestinian cause and its supporters. In whatever form they take, the “Land Loss” maps show very little variation. The standard version looks something like this: Sometimes, a fifth map is added, this one dated 1920, showing the entirety of what was once British Mandatory Palestine in a single solid color, labeled “Palestinian.” This accomplishes the seemingly impossible and makes the series of maps even more dishonest than before. Whether made up of four or five maps, the message of the series is clear: The Jews of Palestine have been assiduously gobbling up more and more “Palestinian land,” spreading like some sort of fungal infection that eventually devours its host. There are some outright lies in these maps, to be sure. But the most egregious falsehoods transcend mere lies. They emerge from a more general and quite deliberate refusal to differentiate between private property and sovereign land, as well as a total erasure of any political context. This final point is especially crucial. It goes to the question of whether the Palestinians actually “lost” this land and the context of that alleged “loss.” We could quite easily, for example, make a panel of maps showing German “land loss” in the first half of the 20th century. It would be geographically accurate but, without the political context, it would tell a completely misleading story amounting to a flat-out lie. And that is precisely what these maps are: A lie. Taking each map in turn, it is easy to demonstrate that the first one is by far the most dishonest of the lot. As far as I have been able to determine, it is based on a map of Jewish National Fund (JNF) land purchases dating roughly from the 1920s. The JNF was founded to purchase land for Jewish residents and immigrants in then-Palestine, and was partly funded through charity boxes that were once found in almost every Jewish school and organization in the West. Ironically, this map often adorned those ubiquitous boxes. These maps have become so ubiquitous that it is worth taking the time to examine them, and what their dishonesty can teach us about the Palestinians and their supporters. The dishonesty of using an out-of-date map for pre-1948 Jewish land purchases is actually relatively minor. So is not omitting the political context: After 1939, Jews were forbidden from making any further land purchases by British authorities, a measure taken as a sop to Arab terrorism. Even the deceptive use of JNF land and only JNF land as a proxy for the entire Palestinian Jewish presence is but a trifle compared to the epic lie represented by this map: It deliberately conflates private property with political control. They are not at all the same thing. The simple fact is that none of pre-1948 Palestine was under the political authority of Arabs or Jews. It was ruled by the British Mandatory government, established by the League of Nations for the express purpose of creating a “Jewish National Home.” It was also—contrary to the claims of innumerable pro-Palestinian activists—the first time a discrete political entity called “Palestine” existed in modern history. And this entity was established in order to fulfill a goal that was essentially Zionist in nature. But this lie is compounded by another that is even more epic in scope: Labeling every single patch of land not owned by the JNF as Arab or Palestinian. This was quite simply not the case. We have incomplete data on land ownership in modern Palestine, and even less on Arab property than Jewish property, partly due to the very complicated nature of property law in Ottoman times. But anyone’s map of private property in Mandatory Palestine from this period would be mostly empty—half the country is, after all, desert. It would show small patches of private Jewish land—as this map does—alongside small patches of private Arab land, as this map shamelessly does not. The next map is labeled 1947. This is inaccurate, as any other date would be, because the map does not represent the situation on the ground in 1947 or at any other time. Instead, it represents the partition plan adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 as UN Resolution 181. It called for two independent states to be formed after the end of the British Mandate, one Jewish and one Arab. Needless to say, the resolution was never implemented. It was rejected by a Palestinian Arab leadership that just two years before had still been allied with Nazi Germany. The day after its passage, Arab rioting began against Jewish businesses, followed by deadly Arab attacks against Jewish civilians. Events quickly escalated into all-out war, with Arabs laying siege to major Jewish population centers—cutting off all supplies, including food and water. In some places, the siege worked, but for the most part, it was resisted successfully. The maps emerge from a more general and quite deliberate refusal to differentiate between private property and sovereign land, as well as a total erasure of any political context. At this point, with partition rejected by the Arabs and no help from the international community in sight, the Jews declared independence and formed what would become the Israel Defense Forces. The Arab states promptly launched a full-scale invasion, whose aims—depending on which Arab leader you choose to quote—ranged from expulsion to outright genocide. And the Arabs lost. At war’s end in 1949, the situation looked roughly like the third map in the series—the first of the lot that even comes close to describing the political reality on the ground. I say “close” because it too is remarkably dishonest. It is only because one’s standards of dishonesty have been stretched so far by its predecessors that it almost seems true. But, alas, it is not. The map is dated 1967. What it shows are the so-called “armistice lines,” i.e., the borders where the Israeli and Arab armies stopped fighting in 1949. These lines held more or less until 1967. As far as Israel’s borders are concerned, then, the map accurately presents the situation over those 19 years. But what lies on the other side of the line, in the territories that are today called the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is again presented in radically dishonest fashion. These lands were not—not before, during, or after 1967—“Palestinian” in the sense of being controlled by a Palestinian Arab political entity. Both territories were occupied by invading Arab armies when the armistice was declared in 1949, the Gaza Strip by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan. The latter was soon annexed, while the former remained under Egyptian military administration. This status quo lasted until 1967, when both were captured by Israel. In the 1967 Six Day War, which was marked by Arab rhetoric that was sometimes even more genocidal than 1948, Israel also took the Golan Heights from Syria and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, more than trebling the amount of land under its control. Israel has since withdrawn from more than 90 percent of the land it occupied—mostly in the Sinai withdrawal that led to peace with Egypt. Unsurprisingly, there are no heartfelt “Israeli Land Loss” maps representing this. The first three maps, then, confuse ethnic and national categories (Jewish and Israeli, Arab and Palestinian), property and sovereignty, and the Palestinian national movement with Arab states that ruled over occupied territory for a generation. They are a masterpiece of shameless deception. Shameless deception is the only thing that remains consistent in this series. As we move to the fourth map, shameless deception is the only thing that remains consistent. This map, usually labeled either 2005 or “present,” purports to show the distribution of political control following the Oslo process and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The patches of Palestinian land in the West Bank are areas handed over to the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, mostly under the 1995 Oslo II agreement. Expanding upon the autonomy put in place after previous agreements in the Oslo process since 1993, this agreement created a complex patchwork of administrative and security zones, splitting the West Bank into areas of exclusive Palestinian control, joint control, and Israeli control. It was meant as a five-year interim arrangement, after which a final status agreement would be negotiated. Final status talks did indeed take place. But no agreement was reached. As in 1947, the principal reason was Palestinian rejectionism. This time, the Palestinian leadership rejected a state on over 90 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. They then broke their pledge not to return to the “armed struggle” and embarked on a campaign of suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that were not only morally indefensible but lost them the trappings of sovereignty they had gained over the previous decade. After tamping down the worst of the violence, Israel decided to leave the areas of the Gaza Strip it had not evacuated a decade before. The withdrawal took place in 2005. Two years later, the Islamist group Hamas took over the Strip in a violent coup d’etat. Since then, there have been two Palestinian governments—the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Fatah-led regime in the West Bank. Both of these regimes are marked with the same color on this fourth map, thus failing to acknowledge the split between the two regimes, though it is the first map in the series to correctly label areas under Palestinian Arab political control. Nonetheless, it does not distinguish between the sovereign territory of the State of Israel—or, in the case of East Jerusalem, territory that Israel claims as sovereign without international recognition—and territories in the West Bank that, according to agreements endorsed by both sides, are under Israeli control until a final status agreement. Taken together, what we have is not four maps in a chronological series, but four different categories of territorial control presented with varying degrees of inaccuracy. Those categories are private property (“1946”), political control (“1967” and “2005”), and international partition plans (“1947”). They are presented in a fashion that is either tendentiously inaccurate (“2005”), essentially mendacious (“1947” and “1967”), or radically untrue (“1946”). An honest approach would look very different. It would take each of these categories and depict how they developed over time. For example, basing ourselves on the most blatantly deceitful map, 1946, we might want to show the chronological development of private property distribution. But we’d first have to adjust the original series’ 1946 map by labeling only Arab property as Arab, rather than simply filling in the entire country with the desired color. It would be a lot of data to collect, and then we’d then have to repeat the effort for other years appropriate to the discussion: Perhaps 1950, after Israel and Jordan both instituted Absentee Property Laws; 1993, just before Palestinian self-rule began; or 2005, just after the disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank. The maps would have to be consistent as well, showing Arab property inside Israel as well as Jewish property in the West Bank and Gaza. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to collect all this data, and I’m not sure what it would show in any case. What argument would it advance? That Jews and Arabs should be forbidden to buy land from each other? On the other hand, the categories of political control and international partition plans are quite easy to map out over time. Since the concern of those publicizing the maps above is Palestinian control of land, we can illustrate this with a more honest series of maps showing areas of political control, using the same years as the original—adding one for clarity. As seen above, 1946 has exactly zero land under Palestinian Arab control—not autonomous, not sovereign, not anything—as it was all under British authority. We could go further back in time, to the Ottoman era, for example, and the map wouldn’t change in the slightest. 1947 sees no changes to the map, as Palestine was still under British control. Before the war in June 1967, control is divided between three states, and none of them is Palestinian. The 2005 map would be exactly as it is presented in the original series, showing the very first lands ever be ruled by Palestinian Arabs qua Palestinian Arabs. To clarify this a bit more, I have added a map from 1995, showing the withdrawals undertaken during the first two years of the Oslo process, just up to but not including the 1997 Hebron Protocol. In fact, if we zoomed in a bit more, we would see how the peace process of the 1990s resulted in the first time a Palestinian Arab regime ruled over any piece of land. This occurred in 1994 with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Jericho. That control steadily expanded over more and more land during the years leading up to the failed final status talks. Much of it was then lost during the second intifada, but eventually regained as violence died down, and the Gaza disengagement even expanded it slightly. All of these Palestinian land gains have taken place in the last 20 years and every square meter of it came not from Turkey or Britain or Jordan or Egypt, but from Israel alone; and nearly all of it through peace negotiations. It is true that this is a smaller amount of land than that controlled by Israel—which is nonetheless an extremely small country by global standards. More importantly, however, it is small compared to what could have been ruled by a Palestinian state had the Palestinians not rejected partition and peace in 1947 and again in 2000. That is, had the Palestinians been motivated by the interests of their own people rather than the wish to destroy another people. One could very easily create a theoretical series of maps that would begin in 1947 and show the distribution of political control, not as it existed, but as it could have existed. In contrast to the previous series charting political control over the years, this series would map out the international proposals to partition the country. It would begin with the Peel Commission’s 1937 partition plan, through the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition resolution, and end with the Clinton Parameters of 2000—which were very close to the rejected offers made by Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak earlier that same year at Camp David and Ehud Olmert eight years later. But these international efforts to partition the land would be incomplete without a word or two about each side’s reaction to the proposal. Here too there is a continuing trend of losses for the Palestinian side. Not loss of land, but loss of potential. Each successive rejection left the Palestinians with less and less to bargain with. Surely, there is a lesson in this. But it seems that, if the Palestinians are ever to learn it, it will not be with the help of their Western supporters. We could also make a set of maps that would present a story of Jewish “land loss.” It would begin with the first iteration of the British Mandate, before Transjordan was split off and Jewish land purchases and immigration banned. We are forever being reminded that the Palestinians have supposedly conceded 77 percent of their historic claims already, implicitly saying that all of Israel proper somehow belongs to them. But territorial maximalists on the Israeli side are not wrong when they use the same standards to claim that they have given up 73 percent of what was promised to them, including Transjordan. It is the business of pro-Palestinian activists to privilege one of these claims over the other; but in fact, both are equally wrong: The idea that the Israeli “concession” of Transjordan entitles Israel to 100 percent of the West Bank is as absurd as the Palestinians’ claim that their “concession” of Haifa entitles them to the same. A series of actual Israeli withdrawals, however, could fill a rather long series of maps. It would include the 1957 withdrawal from Sinai, the Disengagement of Forces agreements in 1974 and 1975, the staged withdrawals stemming from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in 1979 and 1982, the withdrawal from most of Lebanon in 1985, the staged withdrawals undertaken according to the Oslo Accords from 1994 to 1997, the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and the complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. These maps, unlike those used by pro-Palestinian activists, have the benefit of being accurate, but I am not sure the case for “Israeli Land Loss” would convince anyone but the most partisan and ignorant of Israel’s supporters. Perhaps the best way to illustrate the bankruptcy of the “Palestinian Land Loss” myth is to compare it to a similar situation elsewhere. An equally absurd set of maps could be drawn up of the Indian subcontinent before and after the end of British rule. It could start with a 1946 map of the entire subcontinent, labeling any private property owned by Hindus as “Indian” and the rest as “Pakistani.” Hindus, after all, are 80 percent of India’s population today, just as Jews are 80 percent of Israel’s. It is absurd to consider anything not privately owned by Hindus under British rule as “Pakistani” when the state of Pakistan did not yet exist, but that is roughly the same as labeling anything not privately owned by Jews under the Mandate as “Palestinian.” We could then put up a partition map from 1947, with West and East Pakistan next to a much larger India; as well as a post-partition map—perhaps from 1955—showing the land losses along the Radcliffe Line. Finally, we could draw a map from 1971 with East Pakistan shorn off into Bangladesh. A fervently dishonest person might call this series “Pakistani Land Loss,” but it would be such an obvious piece of fiction that no one could possibly take it seriously. And no thinking person can take “Palestinian Land Loss” seriously. It is just as absurd and just as much a fiction. But it is also, in its own way, extremely destructive. Because these maps and the lies they propagate only encourage Palestinian rejectionism and violence; and as illustrated above, these have always left the Palestinians with less than they had before." The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss” / Shany Mor 123

The tone of arrogance and presumption in the response of this "thread participant" should say it all. The listen to Hudson Hones shtick is also funny. " This genius thinks a fart out of the left side of his cheek sounds different then from the right side." Rue 911

That was logical, reasoned, and made sense. Stop it. What the hell do you think you are doing on this thread.

I am convinced these days they all work at MacDonald's and Tim Horton's. Try order something.

I of course won't respond directly to the poster who stated the above as he does not have the capability of understanding what I was referring to and so comes back spewing gibberish that has nothing to do with what I was discussing in an attempt to do what he does, bring attention to himself. The topic I was discussing is classic liberalism and whether it does any good for anyone. I referred to how classic liberal thought advocates government spending and incurring deficits as a method of stimulating the economy. Here is the actual debt: http://www.debtclock.ca/ Here is the government spending and Trudeau's contribution to the deficit: https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-spending What I stated is that Trudeau is running up a huge deficit estimated at 50 billion for 2016 and 2017 and has said h e will continue to do so after that. This deficit spending is classic and perfect example of the liberal idea that governments can solve problems by running up debts to stimulate the economy. Liberals believe in government spending and its a classic example of thinking such an exercise benefits people and its what Eye and Omni and leftists believe in. What others like myself and many others argue is that when governments spend to "boost" he economy as they claim it does, they also "boost" the interest rates on the debt the escalate. The effect of those escalating interest rates many of us argue do more harm to the economy than any short term stimulation of the economy because they direcly lead to increases in the cost to borrow money for you and I whether its for our businesses, home mortgages or on our credit cards, car loans. Its also a fact that government spending is not something that can be sustained, so necessarily it has a 1, 2 maybe 3 year impact if nay, enough to get a politician re-elected but far from being able to create changes that allow the economy to continue to sustain itself without the continued government spending. When public interest rates increases the cost of private sector borrowing which doesn't stimulate economic growth but does the exact opposite. For every dollar our governments spend us into deficit, up goes, our borrowing costs as individuals goes up and this means government spending is triggering putting each individual Canadian into deeper debt on their private financial matters whether it be business, or domestic purchases, mortgages, credit cards. This is why I and many business people or common every day Canadians do not believe government spending is a panacea as liberals do. We believe it is causing great harm to future generations who necessarily inherit huge carrying costs on loans, i.e., interest rates. Your run up any debt for short term gain, of course their are long term consequences and this is why many of us argue for example putting Haitiens in tents and on welfare like all liberal fixes, is temporary and feel good in the moment, but in the long term solves, nothing an din fact makes it worse by failing to do the right thing which is not going to be feel good but may be necessary. Politicians don't get elected doing the right thing-they get elected saying the right thing-feel good messages Trudeau and Trump got elected telling people what they wanted to hear, not what they had to hear. The deficits the Ontario government has incurred in the name of liberal spending is a fiscal disaster. The exodus of businesses from Ontario is public and is well know. Ontario has gone from a have to have not province precisely because of deficit financing between the NDP and Liberals. Bankrupting Ontario has not done a damn thing for the poor or to rectify injustice as Eye would say. More people have ended up at fod banks during the McGuinty-Wynne era than in the Harris era, ironically. . .

Slow down. Before this thread becomes a platform to kill or arrest Bhuddists consider the other option that may have started this thread: someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder with paranoid delusions and is off their medication. As for the article its talking about Sinhalese in Sri Lanka or Burmese in Burma-Mynammar who both have had histories of clashes and civil wars with Muslims.. To draw conclusions from that -that all Buddhist are evil let alone the thread starter's claims are legitimate is a stretch.. Given China's actions in Buddhist Tibet, one would think a Red Flag would go off when you hear someone saying Buddhists are powerful in China let alone and trying to kill just one person. China is an atheist nation. It treats Islam as it does Buddhism. There are 20 million Muslims in China and a lot of political turmoil with them. China was not exactly warm and iniviting when it took over Bhuddist Tibet. As for Mynammar, ironically Bhuddists did not support the Military Regime and have died in protests against it and anyone who knows anything about the Sri Lankan civll war will tell you it was not a religious war at all. Its a complex issue and it was never about religion.

Lol,....hey now ....t I do appreciate the melting point of steel and certain people's intelligence levels. Regards, Rue dah Jew who's a Whitey too unless I meet Taxme den i'z Hebrew

Ok Scooby Doo and pretending you are not white means what exactly? Lol. Whitey. Man oh man. Go check out who Rooster was on Baretta the t.v. show or Antonio Fargas on Starky and Hitch. Leave "Whitey" to them and do yourself a favour, get out of Mama's basement.

I remain silent to 99.99% of your posts now because you have lowered yourself to the point of sheer stupidity on this board.. Your attempt now to pose as an anti white militant is without a doubt the most stupid thing you have evidenced with your words even more stupid then suggesting the melting point of steel is a type of steel. Now you pose as a non white militant blaming whites for the world's turmoil? What Zionists and the USA didn't get you any attention so now you expand your target to try attract comments? This is how you get attention? Lol. Finish it. If you are going to come on here and pose as an anti white racist, and make race an issue, and smear white people, point out your race, ethnicity, religion, economic class. You provide nothing but immature, hateful remarks that not even the turmoils of reaching puberty can justify. Anyone can come on this board and engage in racial stereotypes or anti semitic stereotypes. Its an idiot's game and you play it. The only difference between you and Taxme is the angle your heads slant at. Now when you come back and explain how black and Muslim you are and what a victim you are, the liberals can at least come on the board and join you with some heartfelt lipservice. I love it. Listen stop being such a putz-you want to insult a white person, the word is cracker, spaz dancer, albino, goose, beluga whale, milky way, vanilla guerilla, pink stuff, flat butt, square head, no lips, yellow fangs, teeny weeny, but not whitey. Gawd that was painful. Whitey. Yah I know man you from dah hood. You dah man.

We agree that globalization is one of the major ingredients in the list of causes behind unfolding migrant movements. Globalization the word means the shrinking of borders or the lessening of their significance. Travel does that. Airplanes do that. The internet does that. The cell phone does that. boats with geographic proximity do that. The point though is its too simple to say just Globalization. Weather, famine, draught, civil war disease, of course they all play into it. We also know because we've seen it demonstrated, if a multi-national can move an operation to a country with cheap labour and no environmental or safety regulations off they go and ironically to socialist people's republics like China and Vietnam or to Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Cambodia. First world countries now have citizens who have been brought up expecting a specific standard of living and we see it New Canadians immediately expect a house in the suburbs, a bmw or audi in the driveway, everyone bused to school, free medical and dental care and benefits for when they are not back in their home countries during the winter months. That's a generalization but its become true. We have ghettos of convenient Canadians who use Canada and do not build Canada. They've been told fro, the get go this hypehanated existence of one foot in the homeland and one in Canada is acceptable. I don't think you build a country that way. I think immigrants who built this country knew they could not travel back and forth and get benefits and were on their own and they would sink or swim and bloody well learned to swim, They had to be self sufficient. There's a way to give a signal that when people come here, its not a convenient place to put one foot in and one foot out and use and I don't think Trudeau is the leader to provide that message because he's never had to work a day in his life. He comes from a fantasy world where everything is taken for granted. He portrays himself as self-made because he grew up on the Trudeau trust fund and in Ottawa and was a drama teacher for barely a year. As for Eye's comment about liberals desiring to not ignore injustice they do just that. Throwing welfare at Haitiens and putting them in tents ignores what has to be done. Its patronizing, its racist, its what soft sheltered liberals do to ignore the reality that life is unfair and will always be unfair and people have to learn to deal with that not throw welfare benefits at it and put people in tents thinking that makes it o.k. and justifies their own privileges which they feel guilty for. Liberalism is ineffective. It doesn't build or motivate it molly coddles. People when faced with hardship need substantial, practical help not lip service and some coins thrown at the like a beggar in the street No I do not think throwing a dollar at an alcoholic on the street or a supposed homeless person does anything but assuage my own guilt, and no guilt I do not have. The homeless, the mentally ill that end up on the street, the corruption, the wide spread inequality in the world, its a constant and its not going away. So one must pick and choose constructively what they want to do in life and grow up with this bullshit that they can remain in Mama's basement, feel guilty, think if they whine about how sad life is, it makes it better. I am a strong supporter of ngo's and npo's teaching self sufficiency at the appropriate geographic places. Creating tent cities is bullshit. Its just the recycled exercise of placing aboriginals in reserves. Liberals don't marry or hire Haitiens or live with them. They use them as pawns. They send them their old clothes and tell them to be grateful Bwana sent his underwear for them to wear. People do not benefit from pity. They need food, tools, to rebuild their nations after catastrophes.

Betsy just a few comments, A knife is a weapon of violence by both criminals and terrorists because it can be used quicker than a gun. You have time when someone points a gun more likely than you can react to a knife. Guns require you actually breath and point a knife does not. They are also easier to conceal or attack with. Michael H is right that in some cases knives are easier to get, i.e., kitchen knives, skinning knives but not necessarily switch blades or specialty knives. Most knives used in crimes are shanks or stillettos. The ones used say in Jerusalem are actually any sharp knife from the kitchen or butcher knives and most terrorist knive attacks are done stabbing you in the back never to your face. Even terrorists find it hard to look in your eyes to kill you. A lot of them need to drink or smoke hash or get high or wind themselves up in a trance. Terrorism is cowardice. Its what a coward does. They have no code of honour. Killing children, the disabled, the elderly, civilians, using ambulances, doctor's and nurse's uniforms, strapping bombs to pregnant women and people with down's syndrome, its all done. The bottom line is you can never fully prevent terrorism only make it more difficult to happen by giving up certain freedom of movement components.. The solutions for terrorism will not be spoken,-they will be carried out and people should be grateful the people who take care of such things won't discuss it. The solutions are already there. They are being carried out. All I say is when you see a soldier, thank them. Leave it at that. Its the same way you should thank a firefighter or police officer with a nod or a bow or just a smile and leave it at that and not pretend to think you understand what has to be done. They have boots. They put them on.

So of course left wing prescriptions have had no negative consequences? You now going to pretend excessive government spending and the deficits it causes aids you or anyone else. Tell me has Trudeau's spendinggiven you anything in the last two years? He's saddled the next 5 generations with an escalating interest rate on the deficit he has created and this country can not pay back. Yah that's quite the solution-bankrupt future generations to an out of control spiralling debt triggering recession. That's a better solution You are typical of leftist. You think your political opinions don't smell.....your Marxist shit doesn't stink-ou have no clue how economic markets function.. None. Zero. You think anything a state runs is a solution. Lol. Its time someone break you of the habit of sucking on the nipples of the state. Not me. I could care less if you bite Justin's nipples. Besides I am sure he will like it.