Rue

The crack about noses was not an insult directed at you. It was a snide comment directed at what I preceived to be an anti-semetic remark about the Jews on this board so I was satirizing it. It had nothing to do with insulting you and everything to do with spitting at the stereoptypes some trot out about Jews. Are you that insecure you read everything I say as an attack?

Yes just not the governments of Sudan, Libya, Egypt, the Gaza, The West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran or any other country you selectively ignore right Bud. Give it a rest with the lecture. Your selectivity as to whose government you criticize and when speaks for itself.

ahah. you and Yankee Woman must be Jews. We think the same on this. Ahah. You 2 admit you eat bagels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am proud to be called Oleg Bach the second. I doubt you could fathom why.

Someone's assumptions and absolute lack of humour and self righteous pronouncements are also evident. Show one word that states I hate gays. You assume. You assume because I can not stand self righteous self entitled meely mouthed fools who try dominate gay pride for their own narrow selfish narcissistic idiotic displays. Don't you dare throw the gay card at me because I call out pathetic,passive aggressive little snots who try hi-jack the events. My comments are directed and have always been directed at phony, two faced cowards who try hide behind behind being gay to spew ati-semitic pap. You want to try defend these fools as displaying their gay rights go ahead. As many gays as straights feel the same way about these asps. It has nothing to do with them being gay. Save the self righteous labels by the way for yourself. If you can't laugh at thongs and large breasts go have Oleg Bach explain why both could be the subject of humour without being anti gay.

There is and can only be one Oleg Bach. I think its great for gays and anyone who wants to join them. When you think of it Rob Ford could pass as an aging lesbian.

Yoo hoo hi. So cut and run. Sounds like a busy Rabbia going from briss to briss. Are you referring to JBG or moi or perhaps Bobby Ford. Now in my case I am always around to tell you the majority of us do not want to fund some pathetic affected spoiled child having tantrums about Zionism while wearing his thongs. There's a time and a place for screaming at Jews. Gay pride is not one of them. As for Mr. Ford not wanting to attend I will speak to him. He told me he is afraid one of your friends will try pinch his buttox. Bob is shy. he feels he has big breasts from his weight issue and this could cause further misunderstanding. He also can't walk as he is overweight and he is afraid he would break the float he was asked to sit on. Now mind you I hear he is reconsidering. Several of the more overweight draq queens are in negotiations with him.

Say I just read that. This latest news item that Mr. Ford won't attend the parade caused me to come back to this thread. Now in regards to 1, I had no idea Shwa was a faux fag hag double spirit bilingual. Now in regards to 2, Shwa darling, since when does the Toronto Arts Council collect funding from the city government to engage in anti Zionist parades. Did I miss something dear? Lol. Fled like a pup. Get it right Shwa, I am referred to as a Canaan Dog.

Why are you making the inference we Jews all have to have the same opinion? Of course we have differing opinions. Why shouldn't we? By the way if you did notice the JOOOOOOOOZ on this thread actually agree on what each other has said about anti-semitism or our Jewish collective identity. There is no disagreement on that nor has there ever been. Sorry I don't walk and talk like Bob or JBG. Our noses are probably different as well. However we all are circumsized. I trust that is uniform enough for your need to lump us in one category. I have no idea whether we are all the same size. I have no intention of measuring Bob or JBG.

Actually if it was anyone else he would back up whatever claim he has to make. I wouldagree with him it would be a wasted effort with you. You've made that clear in your responses. Now for you to call his posts nonsensical is funny. You are a grossly obese man telling an American he eats too much. Here's a hint, before you do that at least put on a bra beneath that shirt. You vibrate your tits when you point your accusatory finger.

In the case of Israel simply defining itself as a Jewish state was sufficient to be considered by Muslims and certain (certainly not all) Christians as an abomination. For Muslims the concept of a state other than a Muslim state has religious roots of intolerance. Its based on dhimmitude-the concept that a Jew is not equal to a Muslim and should certainly not have equal rights let alone a state and that still prevails today. For certainChristians it is partially religious intolerance (going back to the Passion Play and the concept that all Jews are cursed with the collective responsibility of having killed Jesus and therefore deserve anything bad that happens to them) and partially denial of the holocaust or that religious intolerance which culminated in the need for Jews to flee for their existential survival and take a last stand with universal sufferage to prevent their extinction at the hands of Christians as well as Muslims which is also a political denial. There is no doubt over the many years of Israel's existence subsequent policies have exasperated tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. No one is saying certain Israeli policies can't be reformed,changed or in hindsight were negative or counter-productive. Israel is not a perfect nation. However the fundamental roots of the conflict comes down to one issue and one issue only, Muslims in Muslim states and Christians in Christian states believing while they can have Christian and Muslim states, Jews can't have but 1 Jewish state. We can spin that around and try revise history and blame Israel and Jews for everything that ever happened which many do, but at the root of the conflict is that one basic issue which is in fact the double standard, that Jews should be the only collective people in the world who should not enjoy universal sufferage. Its o.k. for Muslims to have multiple Muslim states and Christians to have multiple Christian states, but not never for the Jewish collective to have its nation. To me its just another version of trying to remind the Jew they are inferior and need to ke kept in their place, i.e., always a minotiry outside looking in at the majority. It really is simple. Israel is a golf course created by Jews when they were excluded from Christian and Muslim ones. In an ideal world there would be NO golf clubs.

Neither will I.

In regards to 1, no, not in response to you. With others, yes.When I respond to you since none of your comments deal with fact based arguements or history, simply your unreferenced subjective opinions, I respond accordingly. In regards to your second comment, if you intend to go through life watching t.v. it will continue to reflect on your limited ability to conceive of things let alone perceive them. You might want to get out from the t.v. and try real life. Here's some words by the way you might want to meticulously research: public domain corroborated evidence corroborated documents government archives faculty of history foot-note bibliography historian history editorialization. Boo!

Lol. That sums it up. By the way get back to me when you can actually tell me what an historian is as opposed to someone who makes political commentary or editorialization. In your meticulous research you must have missed that one.

In regards to 1, this is exactly the comment one expects from you. You come to this board to try bait people. This is why most people just ignore you now. You are a one trick pony whose act wore it self out many posts ago. In regards to 2,I never stated you hate Jews let alone hate Jews because of your subjective interpretation of a portion of the Geneva Convention. What I challenged was your need to attack all Jews negatively in your discussion questioning Israel's existence. Bud, the attempt to try change what you did and what I challenged is an exercise that fools no one. Bud the only one who comes on this forum and assigns motive to people is you, not I. In fact I challenge you precisely because you presume to know what people think and feel. In regards to 3, no Bud don't lecture me. Don't tell me what I should realize. Speak for yourself. Therein lies one of your reoccuring problems Bud. You like to tell people what they HAVE to think. Its your way or no way. People Bud who presume they are in a position to lecture others and command how they should think or as you state "realize" simply manifest narcissism, the need to have others reflect their own feelings adn thoughts. Its called narcissism Bud. A narcissist needs everyone to agree with him. He lectures and points his finger and presumes all must reflect his image. Bud that usually is a sign of someone overcompensating for their own feelings of insecurity. However I would never presume to suggest you feel insecure or are an immature child who still needs to get up on a soap box and scream through a microphone. Lol. Not me. I will say this though Bud. The more you respond, the more it becomes obvious you are not interested in anyone's opinion but your own. I would suggest you save the kind of approach you use for JBG. I'm not interested in people whose mission on this forum is to incite anger, and polarize people. Its boring,mundane, tedious, unoriginal, rigid, inflexible, lacking in any positive content. What is does do is repeat the same polarized rant calling for Israel's destruction. Scream all you want Bud, Israel is not going poof. Also Bud you are quite funny. For someone who claims to respect a law of return, you are selective which one you approve of and therein lies the absurdity of your statement but I doubt legally you could understand why by supporting one law of return but not another, you contradicted yourself. In your world legal conceptualization and the understanding of how international doctrine are applied don't seem germaine to your conclusions now do they.

If you make a sweeping negative generalization I will challenge it as bigoted. Since you have made sweeping negative generalizations about all Muslims I have challenged them no differently then when others do it against Jews or Israelis. If I find you continue to try incite negative generalizations about all Muslims I will keep challenging you. There is a way for all of us to discuss the Middle East conflict without the same tiresome sweeping stereotypes spewed against Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims.

Not if they are Zionists. We should deport them to Poland. I mention that because both Normie Finklestein and Numb Chumpsky ( I think I spelled his name right) both suggested that. Also I think Shwa feels that way too from a previous comment he made to me.

In regards to 1, I don't want to know what you do with yourself in your spare time. Thanks but in case you did not notice I did not even attempt to suggest what hand you use nor do I care. In regards to 2, I do when you or others make me laugh and the calibre of threads and responses has been doing that lately. By the way I feel a Lol coming on in regards to your choice of hands. Either way I hope your approach gets you the satisfaction you seek. In regards to 3, is that like nyah nyah I know you are but what am I? Lol. Oh dear I used Lol again. Does that bother you? Here's a helpful tip, if you want to argue two wronngs make a right, go ahead-that's not playing devil's advocate though-playing devil's advocate is presenting a well reasoned counter point to someone's point. What you are in fact referring to is flinging poo at someone because they fling poo at you. That's not playing devil's advocate. That's called being a poo flinger...but please be my guest. You say nyah nyah back to the other's nyah nyah. In regards to 4, now for someone criticizing me, you kind of fell apart on that one now didn't you? There is no logic in your response at all. First you make a sweeping negative generalization that all supporters of Israel all engage in the same ignorance which is is illogical since you do can't know how and what all Israel supporters think but that didn't seem to stop you with this sweeping assumption: "seems to be done all the time for those who support Israel". "seems", tell me is that in reference to an objective methodology you used to measure all Israel supporters' opinions? Your second definition of ignorance was stated as follows: "Ignorance is not recognizing Israel's own abhorent actions in certain situations." In regards to the above definition of ignorance it might be but it clearly is not the ignorant behaviour I was challenging and so your attempt to change the context of the ignorance I was challenging is illogical. At no time did I state it is not possible to be ignorant in support of Israel. You are addressing a possible example of ignorance I never challenged or raised with you. What makes it more "odd" using your words is that I have challenged equally supporters of Israel like JBG and now people like you and Left for the exact same reasons and that is not because you support one side or the other-but because you choose to make sweeping negative generalizations about the other side which I challenge. I also challenge you both equally because I believe your comments in those instances where I challenge them are designed to name call and make negative assumptions about the motives of the other side of the debate. So your attempt to try bait and switch the kind of ignorance I challenge you and others for is not going to work. More to the point even if someone does engage in unfair criticism of Palestinians, how does levelling equally as unfair criticism of Israelis achieve anything positive? I asked you that question and you ignored me. Why? Why did you try bait and switch the ignorance I challenge and the question I posed to you? Can you answer it? Can you honestly say if you respond to an ignorant statement about Palestinians by making an equally ignorant one about Israelis you will achieve anything but throwing manure at your opponent? Well? 5-You find my responses odd? You find my LOL's annoying? Say now I guess we are even because I find your what's wrong with flinging poo at poo question and two wrongs make a right position annoying. Come now.We were given the gift of reasoning. We have choices other then flinging poo back when its flung at us. We have two other options-one is two ignore the poo flinging and the other is to answer it with reasoned response pointing out the lack of logic in the other's comments and avoiding using name calling and insulting back but sticking to the issue. In this instance you do not advocate the devil's advocate position which would be the latter, you in fact advocate farting at someone who farts at you. (I am trying to keep the analogy simple simple because JBG finds my responses obtuse and difficult to follow and he sulks when I tell him noto fat at people who he thinks fart at him for being Jewish.) Odd? Say we are even. I never thought I would read a post from you trying to argue responding to ignorance with equally as ignorant comments was something we should strive for let alone is an example of playing devil's advocate. In summary, LOL.

What I do realize is when you troll and are challenged on it you have no idea how to respond to what you are being challenged to which should be no surprise to anyone. Here let me say it again because JBG likes my challenging and calling people out when they are being deliberately hostile and trying to incite people-you came on this forum to incite name calling against Israel and I challenge you for it and not expressing any political position.

Oh look name calling because someone is still in a snit for being called out by me. Tsk.

Right on cue is Bud: To blame the U.S., Obama,Americans, Boston Bruins fans press A To blame Israel, Jews and/or Zionists press B To blame all of the above press C.

Oh look who's in on the inflammatory comments. Yeay! The crack about a conspiracy and everyone out to get the Jews-thanks for showing everyone how the real agenda behind such inciting is to attack not just Israelis but Jews. Right thing? Do the right thing? You know what the right thing is? You decide what the right thing is? You have decided what will be right? Here let me tell you in clear terms-what you think is the right thing is completely and utterly non germaine to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Your opinion is simply a re-hashed anti-semitic double standard that says Muslims and Christians can have states and multiple ones at that but Jews can't have just one small one. There's no conspiracy Bud. Just people like you using the pretext of criticizing Israel's existence to try impose a double standard on Jews who struggled for universal sufferage and obtained it. Keep yapping Bud, those Jews are going nowhere. No they won't poof disappear because you think that is the right thing.

Probably the same reason over 143 other countries with rights of return no different than Israel's did. Was that a trick question? What a lame thread. Go on just say it-Israel poo poo ka ka. Roll with the concept.

Lol unless it was a Jewish state. Then we would insist on wiping it and its people out and calling them undemocratic and a wide range of names as this thread is intended to do.

Yes like you said, you are trolling.Calling it reflecting on your musings doesn't change that fact. The Nakba comment also makes it clear you are atleast for me and probably some others insulting our intelligence trying to pose as a friend of Israel while throwing out that word. Give it a rest. Your reflections at musings are meant to do what other than troll. You didn't ask a question you expected an answer to. Its clearly a statement posed as a question. Your statement could have been summarized in one short sentence-Israel in my opinion can not be democratic and Jewish at the same time. Instead you chose to talk your way around the statement. Why? You afraid to say it? Why not just spew it out directly. Why the posing of words? Tell me do you ask the same question of the Vatican, the United Kingdom, Muslim states? You have any problem with the United Kingdom being democratic and an Anglican state? You have any problem with Greece being a Greek Orthodox state or Ukrainian Orthodox being deeply entrenched in the Ukrainian government's institutions and heritage? You have a problem with India being a Hindu state or Thailand being a Buddist state? Of course not. Your intent and purpose is to stimply repeat the same mantra-when it comes to Jews unlike any other people in the world they should not have a state that protects and preserves their religion. Can't have universal sufferage for Jews now can we. Yah you sound deeply touched by the holocaust. I am so glad you care so deeply about it but had this sudden realization Jews can't have a Jewish state and be democratic. Golly gee the righteousness of your insight must have just come out of the sky and slapped you silly right? Oh I know. Some of your best friends are Israelis and others Jews. Yah I know. You ate a bagel once.