Rue

Because she kicked it dufus. She not only kicked it but went after it. It was nowhere near her. As for the brown skin and wearing a shawl you walked into that one. I was deliberately making a point. You had no grandmother, You made that up. Your agenda is to confront people you think are not as righteous as you. You think because someone disagrees with you they are racist, anti this, anti that. Read it in many of your posts. Think about it. You know damn well her brown skin and shawl is irrelevant. So say so. You didn't. Rather than keep it a distinct issue of bigotry which you did not you mixed it with the issue of dog abuse or animal abuse. Here is my point now. People are mixing Muslim religion or beliefs with hating or abusing animals. If they use Islam to abuse animals its wrong just as it is to use any culture or religion to abuse animals. If any religion preaches abuse, its wrong. No we do not have to hold off and say if you come from a culture that treats animals like crap and you learned that from your culture or ethnic values or religious values, yes we can questiion it in Canada and it does not make us bigots. No don't hide behind your age, religion, culture, to justify being an asshole. As well generalizing an entire people as thinking the same way about animals is b.s. Now you go back to lecturing people. Me when I do so its tongue in cheek to make a point. If you can't figure that out, I have explained it now o.k? Save the feigned shock at reference to brown skin. It was at the pith and substance of this thread on animals. Now since you want to get all testacle like about this issue, a real man does not abuse animals for any reason. A real human wouldn't either. Get this real clear and if I still don't make sense have Oleg explain it. Its wrong to abuse animals. Its wrong to make sweeping generalizations about anyone. Its bullshit to use disability, trauma, skin colour, ethnicity, religion, politics to justify negative behaviour. There is a way to criticize things in Islamic culture that may not make your politically proper standards but do not make the criticizer a racist. Yukon Jack was not intending to slander anyone. He was attacking people of any culture who are taught animals are filthy and unGodly. I stand by what he said. Don't lecture me that to agree with what he said makes me hate Muslims. It does not but I have taught the Muslim kids on my street to play and love dogs contrary to what their Imam told them. Whether that gets me in shit or not I do not care. Their parents support me.

He has an agenda to come on this forum and engage in a constant dialogue attacking the existence of Israel. Its not so much a problem as it is his partisan political agenda. It is stale dated. I would suggest if it was anyone but Israelis he was attacking you would have had a gang up of righteous ones lecturing him long ago.

Charles Anthony should have been surprised at my response but also should have known something wa sup with me. I was making a point. A deliberate one. Wasn't sure how else to make it. In these discussions, inevitably sweeping generalizations are made about Jews and Israel using the pretext of allegedly advocatingv on behalf of Palestine. I engaged in what I consider the exact same language only specifically directed at Bud instead of how I believe it is being used against Palestinians, Jews, Muslims and Israelis in these alleged dialogues. No of course the personal attacks against Bud are wrong. Totally wrong. Now I ask all of you, since that is so obvious, why then is it acceptable if we take the target and change it from Bud to an entire people. Does it change because its targeted against all Jews or all Zionist Jews or all Israelis or all Muslims or all Palestinians? Well? I don't think it does. So the next time you are shocked I attacked Bud personally which is of course wrong, think about this point when people engage in the same exercise against Israelis, Jews, Zionists, Palestinians, Muslims. I trust the point is made albeit I am disappointed no one lectured me on how unfair it is to name call people or attack them simply because they have a different opinion. Mr. Anthony horrible way for me to make a point, but I am running out of ways to make the same argument fresh. Also without getting personal, I do believe Bud's previous forum posts make it clear what his partisan agenda is. I believe those posts express an opinion that engages in gros generalizations about Muslims, Palestinians, Jews, Zionist Jews, Israelis. This sudden call to arms to me I find lacking in credibility. If Bud were someone denouncing terror and violence by Hamas and Jihad I might take his alleged support of Palestinians differently, To support the status quo of violence and ultimatums and unilateral forced exercises by other side is wrong- Bud tends to see however only one side of the equation. Not sure how else I can make the point.

No just bei8ng slightly sarcastic. Keep them away from me. On a serious note, I have zero problems with hunters who eat what they kill. I have zero problems with people who use dogs as working tools not pets. I understand how important horses are to some people as work animalsl. I am far from a PETA fanatic. Give me a bit of credit to be a tad more complex then that. do I love animals yes. Do I detest humans who torture and abuse them yes. Do I mistake all animals as cute cuddly pets no. I have trained therapy dogs if it means anything to you. I have much respect for working animals and hunters who respect nature and hunt to eat-they know more about nature and animals than me in most instances. I know they respect wildlife. I was being tongue in cheek with Oleg. I actually find animal rights a complex topic. I am well aware that some of the food I eat comes from practices that may very well be cruel and far more cruel than anything a hunter does. I would like to see more human practices with animal slaughter yes, Doesn't make me Pamela Anderson though, no. Lol. But thanks for your concern,

Lol you are bitter Oleg admit it. Me I make no pretense of being nice. I prefer animals to humans. By the way for any putz who thinks that is hate mongering no I am being tongfue in cheek when I say that, No I am not literally saying I hate humans but I do prefer animals to humans yes. Any day.

Time to respond now I have the time to Sir Bandelot's comments in quotation marks. "tsk tsk. Such generalized sociopathy could also harm you." Task task being unable to decipher the tongue in cheek sarcasm Oleg and I sometimes employ in our responses simply indicates you don't get my point or the extremism I am questioning. ?My mother-in-law, "Gramma" as she's know by the kids, is an Acadian woman who has always been afraid of dogs, ever since she was attacked by one when she was young. I don't find her an a-hole who's "hiding behind her childhood trauma". Are you perfect?" If your grandmother has trauma no of course not. If she used that as her rationalization for terrorizing or torturing dogs yes of course. More importantly your point of pulling the disabled granny card is hilarious. If I saw your grandmother beating a dog I would bite her myself.

Lol. Until you pull out cat nip. Everyone has a price Mr. Bach. But you do make a valid point I suppose. I had two cats one for 18 years one for 19 years. Very loyal to me. I have dogs. Very loyal to me to. The way I see it Oleg you treat any animal with respect, it treats you the same way back. I criticize any human using their religion to justify hating animals or life of any kind. In my neighbourhood not just Muslims but Indians, Chinese, Filippinos, on and on, recoil andpanic and scream and have seizures when they see my dogs. I have a golden and a terrier. Very well trained. I sort of wish they would attack and maim one of these idiots. Did I say that? Tsk. How politically improper. The other day I am standing outside a grocery store waiting for my wife. Out comes this Filippinolady, she takes one look at my dogs both on leashes with me no where near her and she starts screaming like I shoved a hot poker up her butt. She started bouncing up and down and went intothis rabies seizure like dance. I ignored her. When she got no reaction from me and the dogs she just stopped and quietly walkedaway as if nothing happened and then turned around at a safe distance and said she was attacked by a dog and so hates them. I looked at her and said, since she is into voodoo trances and having seizures in public the dogs may have been sent by God to rid her of Satan from within her. She scurried away. Can't stand people of any ethnic group, race, religion. Hate them all equally. Dogs and cats and animals I like. I find all humans however Every religion and ethnic hrou has their morons. The conventional Muslim belief that dogs are filthy and its an insult to bring them in the house, is based on ancient times when of course dogs would have fleas, worms, rabies and continues in many of the world's countries where people live in poverty and so dogs and cats are treated like crap. It of course does not surprise me. If you come from a third world country, you treat aniamls like crap and consider we Westerners ridiculous and absurd and inappropriately affluent with our pets. It is I suppose a Western form of affluence to have clean and pampered pets. That said I don't think its a rationalization for why people from non Western countries should treat animals like garbage. There are many non materialistic non Western societies that use dogs for working functions and respect them and treat them well. You want to hate dogs or cats or any animal, I think you are an a-hole and don't hide behind your third world status, religion, ethnicity or childhood trauma to rationalize it. As for eating dogs as they do in China and Vietnam or the Philippines, heaven forbid I should make disparaging comments given the fact I have been known to eat a Levitt's kosher hot dog from time to time in between the asparagus. As for Michael Vick and any person who raises dogs to kill, I think he should be hung by his testacles for 12 hours until they fall off. I have nothing against hunters. I know real hunters respect wildlife and kill what they eat. I have a problem with recreational hunters who get drunk and kill and leave the animals to rot. They are the same a-holes that watch dog fights and kick cats. If you have no respect for wild life or animals, as far as I am concerned you are an ahole.

Oopsy Bud but forgot the last part of his call to arms. He will also be spreading the word on how we need to rally behind Hamas an Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees as they continue to commit acts of violence against Israeli civilians until Israel is liberated from the evil Zionist Jews. Onwords people! Slew the Zionist imperialist colonialist swine! Tsk. Bud sometimes gets selective on what he screams out to the masses and forgets t insert the last part so I am only too glad to help. Say Bud when was the last time you took some of your activist concern, got out of Mama's basement and went and volunteered in your own community? Here let me spell it out. You are a pimple faced world activist as long as you can sit in Mama's basement using Mama's internet and computer and you don't have to do anything other then pound on the keyboard. You never met a Palestinian. You have never been to the West Bank, Israel or Gaza and your expertise comes from sound bites on the internet. You think Palestinians are little mascots. You patronize them as little objects you claim to defend. In fact you know nothing of them, how they live but you think you do. You think Hamas and Jihad are their heroes. You are a spoiled, sheltered, privileged, little pimple face who has no clue Hamas detests Palestinians as much as you think Israelis do. You have no idea how they terrorize and rule Palestinians with fear and violence. Not a clue. Oh you have it all figured out. Its black, its white. Israel black. Hamas white. There's no in between for Bud. No. Bud is the champion of the underdog. He couldn't possibily be a putz cheering on a facist organization that ridicules people like him and would rape him then chop him to little bits and leave him on the street for the dogs. Tell me Bud you ever met a Palestinian? You ever met a terrorist. You know where they shit, eat, sleep, what they think. Ever come face to face with them and look them in the eye? Lol. Better watch out Buddy boy. I hear they are moving next door to you. Your call to arms won't last the moment they block Mama's driveway and ridicule you when you come out of Mamas' basement and try imitate how they walk. Give up with that attempt at a beard Bud. No matter what you do, you still look like the guy from Scooby Doo not some Hamas terrorist.

As usual I defer to all your posts and agree with you. When it comes to the constitution it is always a pleasure to read your well written and stated opinions. For some they can not understand that these traditions such as the Royal prefix have much history to them which in the military has much to do with pride and the sense of knowing where one is headed because of where they come from. Tradition is not something I always embrace but I understand from my father both an army officer and air force officer that such traditions are something that kept and keeps men sane in a world of insanity. It gives them a sense of perspective when all around them seems to make no sense. Again I am no traditionalist in many things but when it comes to the armed forces, I am glad to see their pride has been restored and their link to their past is now reconnected to their present.

The fact that the man has died does not mean I have to get all phony about it and say nice things about him. I came on this forum awhile back and said 2 things. One I said he would not be around much longer because at the time it was evident he was dying but none of you seemed to be aware of that. The other is as much as I dislike the topic I stated he had a reputation for getting into domestic violent fights with his wife near where I lived and so for me having seen some of them on the street I am not about to wax poetic about him. He was a man with a large ego, a nasty mean streak and a raging intolerance of people who did not share his views. He was rigid and dogmatic and self righteous. That said he lived, sleeped, breathed politics. He was a privileged socialist someone who never went without food or shelter and lived an elite lifestyle of an academic but fancied himself a working man defending the working class. All that said, I respect the man's right to his political views and his hard work in rebuilding the NDP party relying heavily on his personality and ego. Can't stand what he stood for and the way he treated his wives but I respected his hard work for his constituents and his ability to engage in politics a nasty sport at the best of times. Unlike some I am not going to come on here and hero worship him. I do think it is sad he died before he had a chance to live his role of opposition leader. He would have loved the job of being chief whiner of the parliament. Being a man of good health who always biked and exercised his cancer must have been hard on him. Hopefully he is now in a better place.

Mr. Ashley you asked: "How did project power globally fit into this discussion about Canadian ships?" I am not sure what you are getting at but at the present time the Canadian Navy is not operational. It has no destroyers capable of patrolling both its large coasts. It has 4 destroyers. One is rusted and non functional. Another is cannabalized for parts. Another two creek about. Do the math. The Canadian Navy should have a minimum of 4 destroyers per coast in my opinion and a minimum of 2-5 fully functional sub-marines per coast operating at all times. Also don't forget its submarines are crippled and it only has one fuel resupply ship that functions. This does not even touch the smaller ships it would need nor additional new helicopters we need for search and rescue. Right now anyone can bring terrorists, illegal immigrants and smugglers at will into Canada's uncontrolled coastal areas not to mention depleting our fisheries. We have gone from the world's third largest Navy to one of its smallest and we are the second largest geographic country in the world with cast coastal areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and Artic abandon. Harper can call the navy Royal and give it navy blue blazers instead of green polyester suits but it won't change the above facts. Nor does it change the fact we have an aging F-18 fleet in need of replacement and had a closed tender to purchase a one engine fighter designed for low ground warfare when what we needed is a two engined higher altitude longer range interceptor to patrol. I would have gone with more craft from the French or Swedish rather than the popular consortium Canada has bought into but I can understand why it did. At least it has recognized it has to retrofit the air force. However we have a shortage of sailors insufficient to man the boats we have. The Army was stretched to its functional limit and had no hercules aircraft to transport itself. We rely on the volunteer kindness of Northern aboriginals to go out in their small boats and act as spotters for us when the Russians and U.S. criss cross our North flaunting our sovereign claims. Hell we had no Navy to repel the Spanish, Portugese, Chinese, Japanese, Russians from destroying our fisheries ecosystem. Bottom line we have the second largest nation in the world. It means hundreds of nations seek to access our oceans to abstract fish and other resources if we don't do something about it and it will take a lot more then a retro brand name fix. You also stated: "Canada only ends up with Enemies the US makes for Canada." With due respect that's a crock. Canada has benefitted from both the US Coast Guard and Navy engaging in dangerous operations to save Canadians at sea because we had insufficient rescue services able to do the job. For years we lived with the benefit of having the U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol off our coasts especially during the cold war. You can afford to be cocky when you sit next to the U.S. and take its protection for granted. Canada has ben close friends with countries not friendly to the US. We also managed to piss of China while the US at the same time sucked up to China. For years our foreign policy often has conflicted with the US in regards to who we support and how much in terms of foreign aid. If Canada makes enemies it begins and ends with our decision making no one else's. Nothing stops us from having a distinct foreign policy. Nothing. If Harper chooses the foreign policy he does,its because a Canadian decides not an American. Tell me where do any of us get off trying to suggest we suffer from our relationship with the US when 85% of all our business gets traded to Americans? Who tells Canada to be so dependent on the U.S.? If we are dependent on the U.S. its because we lack the balls to invest in our own country and divest our economy. As well this notion we are supposed to be the world's friend is absolutely nauseating for me. This notion we must be the world's nice guy loved by all to me is a phony Canadian affectation started by Lester Pearson. What you think people don't genuinely dislike you or me around the world because they detest our Canadian moral values? You think our multi culturalism that tolerates new Canadians resisting assimilation and demanding tolerance of their beliefs while rejecting everyone else's fosters friends? Give me a break. We have made ourselves a laughing stock precisely because we have tried to be everyone's friend and have rendered ourselves a joke organized drug and people smugglers and illegals who come to benefit from our medical and social welfare systems and leave after they have sucked us for all they can get. If you think being anti American will suddenly make everyone in the world love us think again. The U.S. has been our closest ally. To say it causes us enemies is a crock. No one forced us to Afghanistan. No one forced us to Korea. Where were you when we disagreed with the US over foreign policy anyways? By the way you stated: "The defence minister is dating an Iranian for crying out loud.." I believe she is Canadian. Her ethnicity is of no relevance. The only relevance to her being Iranian is that Iranian women are beautiful. You being Canadian seem to be making cheap shots at fellow Canadians. What next do you want to blame that cheap shot on the U.S.?

He hung wall paper and did some art work - typical non original stuff...much like hating Jews - very old hate style politics - still used today by politicals with no talent. Oleg trust me Saipan wasn't being anti-semitic. I think the point he was making is actually one many Jews have argued. For example Saipan's arguement was very much echoed by some survivors of the holocaust who then went on to Israel and founded the country. Certainly the people who chose to stand and fight in the Warsaw Ghetto and in Sobibor would agree with Saipan. I understood what he meant. He was making the point many have asked openly and that is, had these victims fought back would it have made a difference? Its a rhetorical question. I think its a pointless question. Its like asking a rape victim whether if she fought back she would not have been raped. To me its pointless. It might have worked maybe it would have been completely futile. No one will know but what I do know is such questions can mistakenly end up holding victims of violence to blame for not fighting back and that is wrong I think and so where I agree with you Oleg, but I wouldn't call Saipain an anti-semite. He's far from it. He's actually someone sympathetic to us fighting for our collective identity if anything so he's actually the exact opposite. He's actually been quite blunt about saying we have as much right to defend ourselves as anyone else. So I thought it important to say that. Lol Saipan is many things I suppose, but I think he won't mind me saying if he hates people he hates them all the same for the same reasons. In fact I would have no problem giving Saipan a beer and complaining to him about life. He would put the beer down and make us do tai chi. He's a good guy I think. But then what do I know. I like you and you are a lunatic. I personally believe that giving people handguns is insane. Why? I believe the vast majority of people would not know how to use them properly. I believe a hand gun should only be used by someone specifically trained to use them. Other than a police officer or soldier forget it I can do without some jack ass carrying hand guns. Thanks I like gun control. I don't want some guy who needs to hunt to feed his family harassed over his rifle but I think controlling hand guns is o.k.particularly in cities so they don't end up in the wrong hands andend up leading to murder in domestic disputes and endanger police and soldiers. So thanks but no thanks. I side with the police on this and say keep hand guns out of the hands of people whenever possible. I don't think arming people in cities helps. I think it does the exact opposite. I learned how to use a hand gun and its precisely why I don't have one now. They are not accurate. Anyone who tells you they are is a liar. Anyone who tells you they can shoot someone when they are under stress is also a liar. People are just as likely to freeze or shoot in a panic and hit the wrong thing or have the gun taken from them and used to kill them or others. Believe me it is not easy to shoot at anyone when you can see their eyes. Its a fallacy to think you can. You have to be trained to get over the resistance to shoot at someone whose face you can see. It also takes constant training to be able to use a hand gun properly and accurately. Most hand guns no matter how good they are are no good after 3 feet. Learning martial arts is far more effective and realistic. You want to empower yourself not to feel helpless-learn martial arts. If you aren't willing to learn martial arts then don't think a hand gun will give you a quick short cut. As for police controlling crowds they have a wide range of weapons. They waterand sound cannons, horses, batons, physical wall movement with shields and the pounding of batons on shields, tear gas, spray foams, nets, tasers, dogs,horses, they have all kinds of weapons at their disposal but any crowd expert will tell you asserting physical force is a last resort. Often controlling a crowd is in knowing when NOT TO USE any force not using it. The name of the game in crowd control is giving crowds a way to disperse-when a crowd becomes bottled up and unable to move, then the violence erupts. Keep it moving and keep dispersing it by forcing the movement to spread out the crowd, and it works. The name of the game is to decrease the concentration of bodies. The smaller the concentration the less likely the crowd acts as a pathogen to transmit violence. Crowds effect the individual psyche like alcohol. They lower inhibitions. So decrease the no. of people in the crowd, and that effect gets weaker. Tear gas,or water cannons have always been preferred by police. No police don't need guns nor do people to control crowds. All gun fire will do is cause mob panic the last thing you do when dispersing a crowd. Guns are not and were never the solution. Anticipation and planning is. The country was caught off guard as to how fast crowds can serve as a pathogen to transmit violence. Why? Simple. The police underestimated the power of cell phones to transmit violence. In the past it was simply physical monkey see monkey do behaviour as one ape imitated the next and so on. Now the message to immitate is not communicated just through physical act, but by the cell phone as well. The success of demonstrations world wide whether for political or stupidity reasons has been critical as a result of people twittering each other. The police don't need guns. They need cell phone jamming devices which they are working on.

You capture my frustration anyways Cap. Probably Danceboy's too. Its ridiculously simplistic to write an article saying oh look all the rioters weren't all black. Talk about patronizing simplistic tripe. Look I am middle of the road. I think I could easily come up with a litany of social theories for why people riot and I am sure you have heard them all. Throw in words like exploitation, inequality something with ISM at the end. You know how it goes. The fact is though it does not explain why some choose to do other then what others do to make a difference even in the bleakest of situations. It doesn't explain why 2 people can come out of the exact same "desperate" neighbourhood and one remains an angry, unemployed drunk and the other pulls themselves out and despite all odds goes on to contribute positively to society. We all know both from the same kinds of neighbourhoods and no social science theory explains why some do and some don't in life. Me I think we can generalize and say permanent unemployment fuels anger, riots, self-destructive lifestyles, sure but its not the only reason. Some of it is social yes. Some of it though is us as individuals and the decisions we choose to make with what we have. Its probably a bit of both. But I am with you and Le Danceboy on this one. Its just frustrating to here certain indibividuals so intolerant about certain ethnic groups suddenly playing liberal and social caring about non whites and using the rioting as an opportunity to lecture. Thanks but I need no lecture on why people riot. The bottom line like most of us out there I believe the responsibility for our actions begin and end with us as individuals. I am not here to morally judge anyone else only to speak for myself and that is, I have failed with certain obstacles and over come others as we all have. But like most people I am tired of people embracing victimhood as an excuse for their idiot self indulgent behaviour if nothing else it patronizes the vast majority of us who choose not to be victims and idiots because of our limitations. Then again I look to the course of this thread. Its what I would expect. I think Cap's article was dead on.

Yep. Worms, ants, grasshoppers, beatles,slugs, mice, rodents of any kind-you dump them in boiling water if nothing else to kill any germs and eat them if you are hungry enough. I respect nature. I realize most things out there are edible. Not the issue for me. Issue for me are people who take their fortune for granted and ridicule others. Racoons are a nuisance in most large cities the same reason skunks and opossums are. They can adapt very quickly to buildings and because they are nocturnal like rats, they can avoid humans in the day and thrive on the garbage at night. We've also gotten rid of their natural prey although some will tell you coyotes have made a strong come back and in many cities they are a nuisance too, but coyotes thrive on small pets and garbage so they can't be bothered to hunt coons or rats anymore. Urban people react differently to animals then people living in more rural areas. In a more rural area you shoot and kill anything you think is a nuisance. In cities we are disconnected from our environments and so we feel guilty sometimes when we see wild animal get killed on the road but have no problem walking by some homeless drunk mental case and scarcely batting an eye. In my suburb people come from countries where they throw garbage out and are not in touch with wildlife or maintaining gardens. They want cement everywhere. A lot is where you come from and your culture. What you learn when you are young about life and the planet paves the way for your approach the rest of your life. City racoons are infested with diseases. There's nothing funny about asking people to eat diseased animals. People living in rural areas, with limited income or not hunt. Its a way of life. In many rural areas people hunt. Of course. They have no grocery store. There is nothing to ridicule about that. Its life. Turning it into a joke to ridicule the poor is pointless. I prefer the approach of trying to come up with work projects for the disenfranchised where possible. The fact is many homeless are mentally ill. You want to ridicule them to make yourself feel better, knock yourselves out.

Clearly you do not either. The actual web site for the law is: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/2210C972-7884-481B-805F-E486F5FBC1E9/29067/2304.pdf The law in fact states; that individuals or organizations who publicize a call for an an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity merely because of its affiliation to the State of Israel and/or to an Israeli institute and/or to a specific region under Israeli control, may be sued civilly, in tort, by a party claiming that it might be damaged by such a boycott. The operative word is "may". May is a discretionary word. It does not say "shall". Its a discretionary power. So this would suggest it will not be used in all cases-in fact it may never be used at all. The word "may" is deliberately used so that the government is not compelled to use it in each and every case. The law is very specific in who it might (MAY) be applied to and that is: individuals or organizations who publicize a call for an an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity merely because of its affiliation to the State of Israel and/or to an Israeli institute and/or to a specific region under Israeli control. The target of the law is very specific as are the activities being targetted. It does not state anyone who expresses a political opinion against Israel is targetted but it does say if you engage in a public act that economically attacks and damages against a person or entity simply because they have an affiliation with Israel or an Israeli institution or are located in an Israeli controlled area, then this law MIGHT be used. The law is specific in who it applies to and why. It protects individuals and entities from indiscriminate political activities designed to punish them for the policies of the Israeli government. Now in Bud's world, anyone should be allowed to attack anyone else simply because they live in Israel, an Israeli controlled region or support Israel's right to exist. Indiscriminate, arbitrary collective punishment of anyone or anything perceived as a friend of Israel is quite acceptable to Bud. It's a democratic right. Also in this democratic world of being able to attack and cause economic damage to people simply because they are "assumed" to have a particular political opinion, Bud and his buddies should then go to the government these people are "assumed" to be in cohorts with and ask that government to fund their attacks! Say now, want to start a pogrom... why not go to the Israeli government and seek funding? Better still how about demanding you get a contract for service from the Israeli government and tax exemptions while indiscriminately attacking Israelis. Makes sense to Bud. After all in a democratic state one should be able to inflict damage on its citizens while demanding those citizen's government fund such attacks. Yes according to Bud that is democracy. In Bud's world of anything Israel does is wrong, demanding the government fund him to hurt Israelis is democratic and he should be encouraged by Israel government funding to economically destroy Israel. Makes perfect sense to Bud. For those of us who do not have our heads wedged up our sphincter's the position Bud embraces would appear smelly if not painfully absurd. All this law states is that if in fact if you want to attack individuals and cause damage to them simply because they are perceived to be pro Israeli the government reserves the right not to assist such activities. You see precisely because Israel is a democracy, there are Israeli groups asking for tax exemptions through charitable status and/or other government grants to engage in activities designed to put Israeli citizens out of work and destroy their livelihood and the Israeli government now says they reserve the right to withold any government benefits to such people.... ..but of course to Bud that's anti democratic you see. States should fund organizations and reward them to destroy the state's citizens. That's what we do in Bud's world. Oh imagine that Bud. If you want to destroy Israel they won't give you a tax benefit. How down right unreasonable of them. I personally believe the Israeli Supreme Court will of course be petitioned to strike the law down. Since the word "may" is used, it means each time the law is applied the court will be forced to look at the particular fact situation to determine if the government went too far in punishing someone or something. There's a fine line between punishing someone who hurts others while engaging in political opposition and punishing someone who simply expresses opposition to the government without hurting anyone snf yherein lies the crux of the issue as to whether this law is fair or not. I would suggest the word "may" necessarily means if a government authority uses the discretionary powers under this law, because of the word "may" this automatically means they will have to be prepared to show the standard of methodology they arrived at to decide to enforce the law was fair and reasonable. A discretionary power given a government necessarily must be implemented using a reasonable and fair standard under the natural rules of justice. The operative words for deciding whether the enforcement of the law was enforced reasonably are; "by a party claiming that it might be damaged by such a boycott". Those words in effect state that for the government to be able to establish it had reasonable grounds to enforce the law, they would first have to show a party (an organization or individual) "might be damaged" by such a boycott. "Might be damaged" are the key words. Of course Bud parrots a newspaper article which states; 'Evidence of actual damage will not be required. That is not true. In fact, the words "might be damaged" is what the evidence will be required toshow for thelaw to be justified into being applied. In the real legal world "might be damaged" refers to a reasonable probability that as a result of the boycott it could be anticipated damages could be caused rom the boycott. That anticipation of damages being caused has to be based on some sort of real and/or probable damage. It's conceivable any adverse call for boycott could automatically be considered under the criteria of "might be damaging" BUT "might be damaging" while it could be enough to trigger the act and have it applied, can not establish the quantum of damages and therefore penalty to be awarded. So, in fact, for the court to be able to enforce the law and award more than a small token amount, it would have tow establish evidence of the quantum of damages for it to be able to then say it acted reasonably in the award or punishment it handed out. Reasonable is determined in relation to the government penalty imposed in direct relation to the damages caused. The more small the damages and severe the penalty, the more unreasonable the government's reaction could be interpreted to be and therefore be struck out. Now of course I doubt Bud could grasp any of the above but you might want to tell him he has misrepresented what the law says, what its intentions are, and whether and when it will be enforced.

You people are savages. I hate rodents. Chucks, rabbits, rats, beavers, muscrats, anything with buck teeth I will not eat. A man has to have standards. I have eaten bbq'd locust/grasshoppers and eaten snake, frogs, ants, snails, nut nothing with bucked teeth. Also I know some like Moose and Deer but not me. Too gamey. Also ducks and goose are too greasy, likewise pheasant. Chicken, turkey or maybe squab. Get away from me with pigeons. Also the only fresh water fish I eat are trout. Otherwise its cold water ocean fish with mercury for me. Perch, bass, pike, muskie taste like Oleg Bach's underwear.

Michael Hardner I was pleased no one got censored. Some times it is better to let the steam blow itself out. Then one would hope people would cool off as I did after another series of posts before I now return. It is unfortunate but some readers do get personal and then when one responds in the same manner act like victims. Neither side is right of course, we should all stick to the issues and avoid the personal attacks but more often then not, the person who initiates the personal attack then tries to portray themselves as the victim on this forum. To me there are no victims just 2 kinds of debaters, the ones who choose only to discuss the issue, and the other who choose to get personal and attach themselves and personal digs to their comments. It is what it is. In any event I am glad you showed restraint. I always believe self regulation is the best where possible but yes I do appreciate sometimes that is not possible and don't get me wrong I am not a Libertarian-I do believe as much as I may not like it that sometimes regulation is needed. Its just I don't like it. That said and getting back to this thread the issue is not Islam per se, but religion and to be specific whether ANY religion belongs in a public school. I would argue as Army did earlier that NO religion belongs in school if it is genuinely a public non denominational school. When I say NO religion I mean its not realistic to think you can accommodate everyone and celebrate everyone's beliefs. Do it for Muslims, then its only fair to do it for Christians, Jews, Hindus on and on. The point is if people want religion in schools they should be prepared to go to a PRIVATE religious school and opt out of the public system. Needless to say I am fundamentally opposed to the Catholic School Board. I think it flies against the principles of democracy and equal treatment of all citizens. It institutionalizes one form of religion into a public school system and gives them a right no other religion has. Now for me again I state its not about a particular religion its about any religion. I make the same arguement if orthodox fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone else of any faith expects the public schools to accommodate their prayers. Its not the place. You want to practice your religion do so on your own time in your own house of worship or private school. This is not about being anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti Jewish. It is as army said a simple principle of maintaining neutrality and being consistent in treating everyone the same way. No one is saying don't be religious-what we are arguing is don't expect the state to fund certain ideologies and beliefs but not others. Its a sticky subject because everyone now wants to use school curriculum to introduce particular political, religious and philosophical beliefs. Its tricky on how to maintain neutrality. So for me for example, if someone tries to twist what I said around to say I am censoring religious beliefs, I would simply state no I am not. If you want to teach a course on comparative religions, then do so. Teach a course on all the religions and atheism and agnosticism-just present all the religions equally in subject content. But to say-here your group can use the school for its religious prayers is absurd. What next, and where does it end? Do we close the schools down quickly at sundown on Friday? Do we have Christian prayers followed by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrean, Wiccan, Oleg Bachianism, and so on? We'd have no time left in the day to teach. There's a time and place for everything. I also think it is an absolute crock to single out Scott for his opinions and accuse him of being a bigot. But then I fully expect that kind of attack from the very people who delivered it. They did not respond to his opinions, they simply attacked him as a person and assigned him motives of hatred. Every last friggin one of us has biases and preferences. Scott showed nothing different then anyone else in response to this topic. He is not the issue-whether religion belongs in a public school was the issue. Scott I was going to pass on this thread but decided to speak up because I feel you were singled out inappropriately by people who ironically show the very intolerance they accuse you of. I will say this too, no I do not myself get offended or all up in arms if I see a Christmas tree in a government building. I could care less. To me that is a cultural icon. If its a cross, then personally no I don't sizzle and melt as some accuse we Jews of doing when we see crosses. The majority of people in Canada are Christians. Why would it bother me? O.k. sure Christians are bad dressers and can't dance and do ridiculous things like bowl, golf and engage in curling, but live and let live I say. On a more serious note, what I would argue though is if you put up a cross in a government building or in a public school, then fully expect hundreds of others to want to put up their icons as well and so our walls will soon be innundated with crescents, stars of david, suns, rams' heads, and pictures of Oleg Bach climbing a mountain nude with a halo of course. I remember with my children's public school the Muslims demanded no pork or other foods be allowed in the kitchen. To me that was b.s. They imposed their dietary rules on the rest of the students. I argued, if you don't want to eat pork, then bring your own food. They argued no you must serve us our way and to hell with everyone else. There as a disconnect. The message was tolerate us but we won't tolerate anyone else. So up on the walls went all kinds of Shia prophets during certain times of the year because the school was multi-cultural but the same Shia students would not partake in any one else's religious activities. Enough with the double standards. You want to opt out of Canadian cultural traditions do so.You want to retain your own beliefs and resist assimilation and dress and speak differently and maintain belief in polygamy marriages, honour killings, beating of your wives, understand this-it will clash with existing Canadian laws and values and when it does, don't expect me to say, your religious rights under the Charter give you the right to beat your children, beat your wife, honour kill or have 4 or more wives. No I do not have to accommodate that nor does anyone else. You can't have it both ways. You can't come to Canada and demand people accommodate you but refuse to accommodate others. No it does not work that way and that unfortunately is the mixed message we are giving out. That said, the vast majority of immigrants don't expect this treatment and those with such unreasonable beliefs are extremists no different then the extremist white supremacists who hide behind concern of white men's rights. They are a minority and a small one but they make a lot of noise while the silent majority says nothing. One last thing, it is absolute bull shit as I read from one poster that white men are privileged and have power or are endangered. Both those call for assumptions based on idiotic baseless stereotypes of Oleg Bach looking humans. Regards Oleg Bachian disciple no.13

The above Bud is precisely why you are considered a prize jack ass on this forum and no one bothers to respond to you anymore. Your idea of debating is avoiding debating by calling anything you disagree with a derogatory name which is why you are not worthy of anyone's attention. You don't debate you name call, and that is why I call you a prize jack ass. I treat you as you treat anyone who disagrees with you-wth derogatory name calling. Next up jack ass, further proving the size of your jack assity you quote a Likud platform position which is not the position of the government of the day. But hey why let facts get in the way again Bud right. You just spew whatever comes out of your mouth at any given time. Bud you little jack ass, the sites I provided make it clear who is in the movement you cite and why they are terrorists. You want to ignore it and call them part of a smeer campaign go ahead jack ass. As for me I won't waste my time with you. I should have known better. Your sole agenda is to come on here and rant at Israel and you could care less what anyone else has to say unless they agree with you. Facts mean nothing to you. You are just another little piss ant who comes on this forum to hear himself spew and you can tell Jack Weber I think you are a piss ant and that doesn't make me a tough guy just one of many who has grown tired with the same few meely mouthed a-holes on this forum spewing the same shit over and over. Its time for me to take a rest from this forum. Its become a broken record on Israel with the same idiotic posts. My tolerance level left long ago. Between the fools like Bud and the fools like JBG calling each other names and engaging in extreme stereotypes of one another in an effort to name call its turned me into a name caller, lol and I must defer to Count Oleg on that. He can invite you to his bbq. You and JBG can have tantrums and stick your tongue out at one another.

Here are some recent articles. Kind of hard to over look banking practices in Greece at the root of this problem and specifically its allowing debts to rise as much as they did: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-financial-collapse-of-greece-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-the-global-economy http://www.zerohedge.com/article/greek-bonds-collapse-ecbs-nowotny-announces-bank-will-compromise-agree-temporary-greek-defau http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/euro-zone-the-three-possible-scenarios-in-case-of-collapse-greek-40786.html http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100092968/the-greek-collapse-ought-to-destroy-reputations-around-europe-but-it-wont/ http://www.grreporter.info/en/collapse_greek_competitiveness_according_world_bank_report/3599 The banking system as we know it went into collapse in Europe and North America because of a lack of regulations as to how investments could be made and how much debt could be carried. It really is that simple. For a country that limited its debt ratio and enforced investment regulations such as Canada the ability of people to speculate with bonds, fly by night mortgage deeds and hedging of dividends was kept in check and thus no collapse. Fact is the US and Europe are both bankrupt and the reason is simple, the rampant speculating and debts have caught up with traders who can no longer hedge their debts and play off future anticipayed profits. Add that global warming which has destroyed food markets and caused severe water shortages, rampant out of control petro speculation on oil prices, China flooding world markets and creating huge debts no one can pay back for their cheap goods as well as the insurance claim pay outs from 9-11 and now Japan and New Zealand and poof the world banking system is bankrupt and a market correction will happen because the amount of debt can not be paid back. The only question now is, what does China do when it can't be paid back. Greece is done like dinner and Nigeria is probably next up. The US is bankrupt. The US dollar and Treasury is under severe crisis and could also be next. Trying to blame this on socialism is foolish. The fact is China is anything but socialist. Its a large government corporate monopoly and in that sense no different from the swollen multi nationals it competes against. Free market economy has collapsed precisely because without regulation to enforce the markets from being monopolized by a few, it has been. Socialism has nothing to do with it. Large governments and government spending as the scapegoat for lack of investment and banking regulations makes no sense. George Bush had no problem escalating government growth and allowing his government to become a clearing house for the tendering of fixed contracts to multi-nationals with ties to his government in Iraq. The US is bankrupt because of Iraq, Afghanistan, and disasterous lack of regulation to its banking practices which started with Jimmy Carter's desire to assure every American could have a house. From there Reagan and Bush assured the rampant deregulation of banking enabling anyone to get a loan for any amount with little or no down payment. They then took away regulations as to credit cards. Interestingly many economists warned credit card financing would be the beginning of the end for capitalism and they are probably right. Credit cards triggered both inflation and recession by causing interest rates to go ga ga. Reagonomics proved they never worked. There of course was no trickle down effect but the exact opposite, the pooling of revenues into the hands of a few monoplies while record numbers of bankruptcies then took place. The corupt lobby groups in Washington enabled Japan to corner the market on auto trade with unfair trade restrictions on the U.S. Americans could not trade cars in Japan except on a limited basis but Japan flooded the US markets and why-because this was the price the US paid for naval presence in Japan. Same comments about South Korea. Where was Regan or Bush regulating the Chinese demolition of the US economy flooding it with cheap inferior goods like an economic cancer putting quality production businesses out of work? Greed. Pure and simple. When people are fueled by greed they self destruct. For an economy to work it needs to be balanced-to balance its inescapable you need some government regulation-not so much as to stifle creativity and competition but enough to prevent predatory pricing and unethical speculation based on insider trading or captive markets. So no this is not a matter of socialist or capitalist-its a bit of both. For a country to have a strong economy it must strike a balance between too much and too little government involvement. In the US there is this knee jerk reaction that ANY government intervention is bad. Greeks by nature are incompetent when it comes to finances. Always have been. This is why their governments have collapsed and they swing back and forth from facists to socialists. But Greece is just a minor player and an early warning sign. Many more nations have serious problems including Turkey, Spain, France, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal in Europe and most probably the US, UK and without a doubt Japan.

Lol appreciated your intervention. Not to worry. We are a lively bunch. p

Bud you asked for proof of the ISM being a terrorist cell that wants to eradicate Israel. You were provided numerous sites listing why such accusations against it have been made. You chose to ignore all those sites. Your silence speaks for itself. Its why Bud you have zero credibility and I will take the time to expose you for what you are, yet another anti Zionist crusader putz who sees himself as a trendy leftist and hasn't a clue as to who he supports and why and has no idea what a Jew or Palestinian is. Here putz start with this one: http://netwmd.com/anti-ism/ Knock yourself out denying it.

Well no Bud although I would expect you to spit out your opinions as if they are fact. Netanyahu did not say the above. But why let facts yet in your way right Bud? Here genius here is what he actually stated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7977994/Direct-peace-talks-begin-as-Netanyahu-says-painful-concessions-will-have-to-be-made.html http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/24/us.netanyahu.speech/index.html?eref=edition

No Bud exactly the same. Here genius, read Hamas' charter's references putz: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised. The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after. Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim). Article Eleven: The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day? Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Muslim wherever he may be. Fifteen: The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. Article Twenty-Eight: The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Muslim brethren in Palestine. As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do. We should not forget to remind every Muslim that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. "May the cowards never sleep." If any of the words cause you difficulty Bud let me know.

Bud I should know better then to have responded to you but I will do it one last time. You stated: "the above comment is your proof that they are against the existence of israel?" No of course not. It was my opinion. I then provided a plethora of web sites providing the basis for my opinion and how the reference to liberating Palestine is not limited to Gaza and the West Bank but Israel itself and Jordan. You stated: "how do you expect people to take you seriously when you have such a silly approach to debates?" Speak for yourself. You speak for no one but yourself. This delusion you have that you speak for others is just that. Now then, this notion you have that you can just ignore all the sites and arguements from those sites I provided and limit yourself to responding to one comment and calling it "silly" is what exactly Bud-a genius sharing his intellect? You asked: "show me where ISM has stated that they are opposed to the existence of state of israel." I did. The fact you choose to ignore the sites I provided speaks for itself. You stated: " kind of like how hamas has in their charter that they want to obliterate israel.." How about you try read their charter Bud. You clearly however evidence you don't read anything-you just make it up and bluff as you go along. Go read their charter Bud which specifically states the above. Of course you will provide me sites and quotes like I did for you for the following comment right Bud? "..the current israeli government has vowed to never allow a palestinian state." I should have known better to respond to you. Expecting you to respond to the sites and comments I provided was a bit much.

Well how about we start then with their web-site and the words: About the ISM The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. For those of us that know better "Palestinian land" does not just refer to Gaza and the West Bank but Israel and Jordan. But then Bud had no idea. Here Bud go knock yourself out: http://jat-action.org/ISM_essay.htm http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/international_solidarity_movement_ism_ http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=44660 http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ipc_e149.htm http://www.israelnewsagency.com/internationalsolidaritymovementterrorism9330405.html http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=769 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7181 http://israelseen.com/2010/10/24/lee-kaplan-infiltrated-the-international-solidarity-movement-and-in-israel-to-expose-the-fraud-in-rachel-corrie-case/ N o problem for Bud. He will just laugh it off again because after all if an Israeli or for that matter anyone says anything Bud disagrees with he giggles an guffaws.