Rue

One word, yep.

O.k. I am confused. I thought we Jooz had done that already. Then I was told the gayz were doing this. Then I was told it was the illuminati and then I was told it was reptilian aliens. Would someone make up their mind please. I suspect Fiji Islanders myself. Something about them. That or the citizens of Tonga. The men wear dresses and no underwear. Remind me of the Scottish.

You realize you just complemented Mr. Bach. More to the point I wouldn't advertise your intellectual limitations so quickly. Its called sardonic humour. I know it zips past your little world of literal, rigid, stunted prose. Now get back to your Israel is poo chants. You'll tax yourself and hurt something.

Shwa you know I respect you and others I debate on this forum I don't always agree with. On this one though all I am saying is its too easy to American bash. It does not deal with the issue. The fact is the pastor is responsible for his actions as are the Muslim clergy who incite their followers. Both sets of clergy are responsible for their words. Therein lies the irony. They both engage in the exact same hatred and intolerance. They are mirror images of one another with both trying to blame the other for their own actions. They make mockeries of both their religions. To me I just see fool humans. I don't see Christians or Muslims I just see stupid humans with the same colour and results after they are killed and mutilated in the name of God. Neither speaks for anyone but themselves. I know you know what I mean. I am not here to suggest the U.S. is perfect or better then Afghanistan or anyone else. But in that same vain I am not here to say Canada is better than the U.S. or anyone else or I am. We are all just shmucks if you ask me with the equal potential to kill each other and lower ourselves to primal stupidity. Its epidemic and endemic in all humans. For me as a Canadian whose grandparents escaped here to get away from religious persecution it was very ironic to see the country we escaped to was built on certain injustices, i.e., its history with aboriginals. I mean for me its a perspective where Canada has given me everything my ancestors dreamed of while the original Canadians still remain disenfranchised so I can see the two dimensions or experiences at the same time. I can look at what is bad with the US but also see its good as I do Canada is all I am saying. I just think we Canadians have found it too fashionable to bash Americans-to me that is intellectually lazy and we are in no position to criticize anyone in the sense that we are not perfect. On the other hand while the modest part in me says dont' gloat about Canada and think we are better then the U.S. or others, part of me is still eternally grateful I am here and proud-its just I show it in a non boastful way and a modest way that acknowledges those who died so I could live free while at the same time recognizing those who were displaced by our society. There's a balancing act is what I am saying. If Americans are evil then what I am saying is so are we Canadians for the same reasons. Let's not pretend we do not have the same moral weaknesses. We do. We screw things up in some ways and we do good in others. Me I could not live in a Muslim theocracy but I sure as hell couldn't live in the one the Pastor envisions either. either way they would both burn something on my lawn. I don't kid myself. I also don't fool myself into forgetting the very intolerance I hate in both sides of this putrid display still prevail in a more subtle undertone in Canada with our aboriginals. We don't burn anything anymore but we still have a lot of treaties we tried to burn to deal with. We are not righteous. We are built on the turmoil of others no different then anyone else.

Now that was funny.

Well we did not. So which "we" are you referring to? whatever I learned about Americans was from travelling to the U.S. and talking to them or trying to learn about their history. All joking aside some of us do have the ability not to stereotype an entire people negatively because of one or two fools who can be found in any country including ours. As for JBG not knowing how to spell, while Americans do have problems with their spelling and pronouncing Zed wrong or Zebra wrong and spelling through-way thru-way I would state as a neighbour I could not think of better ones. The fact they have Yankees fans or Philadelphia fans of any kind is a problem but these things are manageable. When in Filly you just need to say something like Mike Schmidt is my cousin and yer fine. Seriously the American bashing is pointless. It makes some people feel self righteous but not moi. If I don't like an American its for the same reason I don't like anyone else. Their being American is not the issue. Unless of course they try tell me Sarah Palin is swell then I say, find out who Rita McNeil is because if you vote her in, we are sending Rita down to eat her.

Say now what a surprise. Bud exploiting the latest round of the conflict to incite Israel is poo comments. Gosh. Never saw that coming. Now let's see: Israel is poo. For no reason it just decided to kill civilians. Just ignore this part of the article Bud quoted like he did: "Hamas has stepped up rocket fire aimed at Israel after a hiatus since the two sides fought a war two years ago, and said its fighters had fired more than two dozen mortar shells and rockets at the weekend.." While you are at it skip this part of the article as well" "Israel has retaliated with air and ground assaults, saying it was targeting militants firing rockets and mortar shells at its towns and cities. In Tuesday's raids, Israel killed five militants of the Islamic Jihad group in two air strikes, one of which took place east of Gaza City, Hamas officials and medical staff said. Israel said one group of militants had been preparing to fire a rocket and the same men had shot a rocket that struck a house in the Israeli city of Beersheba last month." Also ignore this statement from Netanyahu: "Netanyahu issued a statement expressing regret for the "mistaken strike on innocent civilians". and this one: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for the civilian casualties and said Israel had no intention of seeking a further escalation of the conflict, but would defend itself against rocket fire aimed at its citizens." So let's summarize. Israel is poo poo ka ka. For no reason it just wakes up in the morning and says-let's kill innocent Palestinians. why? Because Israel is poo poo and ka ka. That's spelled P O O and K A. Then you say both words twice.

As serious as you are shrilling on cue for Hamas. What's the difference? You explout the deaths for a partisan platform now he responds with his own platform and so?

bad people. ka ka people. bad. poo. poo. bad. You 2 done?

How you came to the conclusion these re-edited manuscripts in either testament are record of anything leta lone the new ones are factual is interesting. The negative generalization that all ancient Jews were proud of engaging in murder, adultery, and all kinds of other poo poo ka ka behaviour is a;so interesting. Seems to me Oleg you just can't shed yourself of your own Easter European Christian Orthodoxy biases. The stories in the New Testament weer re-written by Constantine's stooges deliberately to assimilate pagan rituals and beliefs into the Christian ones to prevent a civil war. Deviations and distortions of what was written were caused by editsfrom the orginal writings and/or the missed translations from Armaic to Hebrew to Greek to Roman and so on. But I love your thesis Oleg. Yes I know. Jew = heathen. Christian = enlightened. Right Oleg. Or should I say Father Oleg now. Thanks Bwana. Thankls for coming to try proseltyze me and lift me from my state of infidelity. Here's a hint Oleg, there are some barbaric things in the New Testament.

Nah the only thing this forum legitimises is wierd spelling.

Well now hang on Oleg. Because following that logic you want to get rid of yourself and I was just getting used to the fact you will be the nextGovernor General and have this huge state wedding to Rita McNeil and she single handedly orders up the entire country's supply of beef for her dinner.

Someone tell Black Dog to have her admitted to this year's Toronto Gay Pride parade on a float. It can make up for her lack of opportunity. I also think she needs to get elected and be a member of Parliament to feel entitled to debate other mp's. Otherwise anyone running for office also has to be at the debate to be fair not just her and no I am not interested in what the Rhinos or commies have to say or those 2 stoned guys from BC and their marijhuana party. Call me intolerant but I have enough problems staring at that little dweeb dwarf (Layton), the swollen headed one (Duceppe), the one who sneers out of the side of his mouth and looks like he is farting every time he speaks (Iggy) and the pudgy one with the fat ass and girl's hips (Harper). Ruby Dhalla is the only semi decent one to look at physically and the moment she opens her mouth she makes it clear she should be silenced and sprayed with an extreme mood tranquilizer. I say vote in Rita McNeil. Imagine her as PM. Just threatening to have her make a state visit will frighten people into peace.

After you make the t-shirts of Black Dawg and start selling them do write back and we will compare who sold more t-shirts. If that was also too cryptic for you to understand do let me know.

Oh well then 2 wrongs make a right if we follow your arguement to its conclusion. Indeed. Me thinks thou is missing the point that Donald S. was not funded by the city and was at a partisan event not a cultural event and his script was not drafted by the Ford brothers. Me thinks Donald S. Cherry unlike QUIAA as well was trying to be funny. Are you suggesting QUIAA is funny. I have never seen so many constipated twisted colons in one interest group ever, and I know a lot of people who don't have enough bran in their diet. This has to be a first. A poster equating Donald S. to the QUIAA in function and exercise. Lol. after reading your thread I did call Donald S. and he has agreed to be at gay pride next year and protest against pinkos. I also am rounding up thousands of people to protest everything from Sharia law to Stephen Harper's penis size. Ah such a world where we can be all things to all people and have the city fund it because its a bottomless pit of financial expenditure and democratic opportunity. It makes me tingle all over.

BD you sttaed: "Rue, you are such a faux faghag." Lol. I must defer to thou. Lol. COme on that was funny. I loved it. Touche. You stated: "I never actually said that. But thanks for playing! " You know I am always available to play with you. On a more serious note,the gay community will decide whether it wants QUIAA at future events. That is something for the gay community to decide. But with due respect the city has a right to decide who it funds and remaining neutral to funding events that are politically partisan in nature is a difficult issue. I think the gay commuity has a difficult issue ahead in handling the QUIAA because not just me but many people gay and straight find their version of politics hateful. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit Irshad Manji's opinions are just as relevant as yours.

Time to respond drum roll please.... BD you stated: "One group does not an event make. They are but one voice among many." Right and the gays that this group smeers in its generalizations should still come to the event and feel welcome. Take it up with them. Gays have argued they all should be welcome not just the ones QUIAA does not rave and rant about. You stated: "Oh fuck off." Now BD. Don't wiggle your penis at me. You stated: "No. Pride as an inclusive event means allowing the expression of a myriad of opinions, even those opinions that may themselves be exclusive." In your opinion. In the opionion of other gays it does not mean the unlimited right to single out certain gays and make them feel unwelcome. Take that up with the gays who find QUIAA bigoted, offensive and intolerant. That is up to gays to decide. If the majority want QUIAA there, that is their right. Just don't expect the city to fund the event at that point. The precedent it sets is that at cultural events the city must fund groups who use those cultural events for politically partisan activities. The city can't set that precedent because necessarily determining what is politically acceptable or unacceptable is something a city should not be asked to referee. Taxpayers disagreeing with QUIAA straiught r gay have a right to say do't use their money to fund an event which provides a propoganda platform for QUIAA. You stated: "Learn to read, douchebag." Oleg BD is wiggling his penis at me again. Tsk. You stated: : I was referencing the piece by the founders of Pride Toronto to the current leadership. Which you clearly didn't read. " Oh look Oleg he is back to laughing, thank God. For a second I thought he would poke my eye out with his penis. Oh BD I did read the statement, and I read many other things to. You see BD I just don't select certain statements and forget the rest. Oh wait, let me laugh to, lol. You stated: "Wow. Mature." Oh wait it gets better. Each time you tell me to fuck myself or call me a douche bag or make poo poo comments about me I get darned witty and I know I am making Oleg laugh. You stated: "It's not a response. It's a diversion." You like to make sweeping pronouncements. You remind me of Yul Bryner as Pharoah in the 10 Commandments. I can sound very authoritarian too, like for example- "BD this is RUE bow down before me..." Oh by the way BD the reference to the burning bush in the movie was misunderstood by Paris Hilton. She thought it was a reference to Lindsay Lohan. Oh wait though I hear another proclomation from the throne..... "The issue of gay rights in Israel isn't relevant. As QuAIA put it:" Oooopsy. The same BD who needed citations as to QUIAA's anti Zionist position and what I stated, suddenly remembers their platform... You stated: "Clearly you don't." What is clear BD is you asked me to provide citations from QUIAA knowing full well what their platform was and you called me a liar for stating they were anti Zionist knowing they are. That speaks for itself BD and you can tell me I am a douche bag or tell me to fuck off but you reduced yourself to that in this debate.

For the record Oleg, and I know you are out there, I think Rob Ford does need to go on a diet. If he tried to put on a thong he could get seriously hurt.

Time to respond to BD: You stated: "No one is trying to turn the event into a partisan one." Yes you are. You advocate that QuAIA should be able to use the Gay Pride day festivities ne used to advocate its political platform which is clearly politically partisan. "The city and taxpayer are not funding QuAIA. Your argument is invalid." No its not. If the city funds the Gay Pride event which then allows itself to become a venue for politically partisan platforms then the city would be funding a politically partisan event. Its not rocket science. You stated: "That's fine. Others would disagree including the aforementioned founders of Pride TO and 23 current and former Pride honourees who made public statements in favour of QuAIA's inclusion." Yes we can trot out those for and those against and in the end it will be up to the gay community to decide. If the majority decide again in favour of having QuAIA vent its platform that is their perfect right. However if the city then chooses to say we will no longer fund you because now your event is politically partisan then I support the city's right to withold funding for that reason. You stated: "So, in your world, the inclusion of any political view point constitutes a partisan political display?" No in my world the inclusion of partisan political views constitues partisan political displays. In my world as well, you continually try misrepresent what I state. Again its not rocket science to state a one sided political view is politically partisan and yes that is precisely the problem with political displays-they come down to subjective political opinions that necessarily alienate. You asked: "Citations for anti-Zionism please." Hah. For you to ask that question speaks for itself. For you to pretend that a site which does nothing but throw out anti Zionist rhetoric for citations is a joke and its why BD your act grew thin on me threads ago when you began asking questions for answers you already had. Play that with someone else. You want to deny QUIAA is anti Zionist go ahead. It speaks to your credibility. You stated: "i don't see how you can't grasp that using the threat of withdrawing the funding is a hostile action intended to force Pride to comply with their wishes. It's a form of censorship." ..oh goody we are even because I can' grasp you can not understand why hijacking the gay pride event to allow politically partisan interest groups to rant about Israel is not hostile or why the city would not want to fund it...further I do appreciate however how you again misrepresent the issue and suggest because the city might exercise its right to not fund a politically partisan event this is a form of censorship-no its not, the city is not refusing to issue a permit for the parade or events-if it did then you could make an arguement for censorship-you are suggesting because Gay Pride is not funded its being censored-that is illogical-the issue of funding is one based on the principal of being fair to all taxpayers, not censorship and using taxpayers money in a manner that is most fair to all citizens not just the ones who reflect your divisive anti Zionist agenda. You want to rave and rant knock yourself out. No one is censoring you just don't give me or any other taxpayer this silver spoon sense of entitlement arguement that you are entitlement to be funded. Fund yourself. Fund your own righteous displays. You stated: "You might have a point if the city were actually funding anyone's political viewpoints. But they aren't." Oh look we are going to play games and deliberately misrepresent the issue again. Yes of course. If the city funds an event which chooses to invite and allow itself to be used for politically partisan displays, the city is not funding those politically partisan displays. Yes. Such logic. Lol, you think if you repeat that enough times it will change the subject or issue? Lol. You stated: "It's the logical conclusion to draw from your claim that the city is funding partisan political expression." No actually it is illogical because in your world if the city funds an event that allows itself to be politically partisan, you argue the event is not politically partisan since the city gave no direct funding to the partisan political group. That is illogical. The content of the festivities does not become politically partisan only once the partisan political group is directly funded. For you to suggest that is not only illogical but at this point ludicrous given how many times you have tried to suggest allowing an event to be used for politically partisan purposes doesn't make it politically partisan. Lol. Brilliant logic. You stated: "Unless you can prove that any of the city $ went directly to QuAIA, you need to change your tack." Uh no, I can just sit back and watch you argue an event that is politically partisan in nature is not because you have decided the group engaging in the politically partisan activities at the event is not being politically partisan since it wasn't funded by the city. Right. Do repeat it one more time. You stated: "Your view that Pride TO should discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints that you deem inappropriate..." You again deliberately misrepresent what I stated. I never stated the Pride TO should dsicriminate against anyone's political viewpoints. The Pride TO organization can choose to do whatever it wants. I have never suggested otherwise. What I have argued is that if it wants funding from the city, it should not engage in political view points that are politically partisan in nature. I have made it clear it is not the specific political viewpoint that is in question, it could be ANY politically partisan view point. You can keep mistating what I said until doomsday BD but I will throw back your mistatement time and time again. At this point BD the constant attempts to misrepresent what I say have done what exactly for you? You stated: "You seem to be unaware of what Pride's actual mandate is, so I'll enlighten you." Thanks. You once again engage in your usual patronizing you know better approach. That is precisely why I write back dripping with sarcasm. Lol. You will enlighten me? Oh thanks Buddah. You stated: "There's nothing stopping Queers Against Palestinian Homophobia or the Zionist Dyke Alliance from also being included. Indeed, as I already pointed out, a Jewish Zionist queer organization has taken part in Pride many times." You again go off on an issue I am not contesting and never have. I have never argued that any of the above organizations were stopped from attenting the Gay Pride event. what I have contested is that if any of these or any other politically partisan organizations choose to joing the parade and events and hijack them to carry out their agendas, then no me and gays and straights and taxpayers of all kinds do not feel we should have to fund the event. Its one thing to fund cultural celebrations, its another to fund event that exposes taxpayers to one sided political views. If that is what the gay community wants their celebration turned into it is their perfect right-just don't expect taxpayers to fund it at that point. You stated: "To turn it into some generic "celebration of gay culture" is to divorce Pride from its very raison d'etre. In other words, you want to make Pride into something that its not." No not at all. All you have stated in the above comment is that in your political opinion you want to turn the gay cultural festival into an event to rave and rant about Israel. Good for you. Then go get the gay community to use their event as a platform to access their audience. Go. Knock yourself out. Just don't come to city hall looking to get funded at that point for the same reason the city wouldn't fund the St. Pat's day parade if it was to be used by the IRA to vent its political platform or how the city would not fund the Santa Clause parade if the organizers chose that event to allow the KKK to march. If you can't figure that out BD bully for you. Most of us can. You stated: "So you're saying the only human rights issues gays can get involved in are those involving other gays?" No. Gays can get involved in any human rights issues or any other subject matter they want. Its not up to me to say. However as a taxpayer I can say, don't use my taxpayers money to fund an event that allows a group to vent its politically partisan views. The example I gave was an example of expressing human rights in a more apolitical manner, a neutral manner that would directly pertain to gay rights without singling out any one country-I was providing an example of how something could be done that would remain neutral to all gays. You stated: "Again, I completely reject your premises." Of course you do because you agree with the QUIAA's political views and think everyone should be subjected to having to listen to them. You stated: "Right, but it's perfectly alright for Israel to brand itself as gay friendly." The above is a politically partisan statement that shows you once again try bait me into an arguement over Israeli state policies. It is not the issue. Try as you might once again to bait and switch no I will not engage you in a pissing match over your hatred of Israel and your desire to rave and rant about Israel. This issue is about whether the city should fund politically partisan events and whether the gay community should choose to allow its event to be used for politically partisan exercises. This is not about your subjective opinions as to Israel. You want to rant about Israel start a thread. You stated: "Cite oR GTFO." You knew where the QUIAA site was and you know its platform. You were fully aware of its mandate, political views and platform and then come on this forum and ask me to cite its opinions. Now you tell me to GTFO because I won't spoon feed you and play your game? Not only did I call your bluff but I now state, people can see your real agenda. You let it slip BD. BD you know its hard for you to play the role of enlightened righteous progressive intellect when you show your true colours-you know BD that is precisely the response I would expect would come out-its exactly the one the QUIAA uses with those gays and Jewish gays and members of the public it disagrees with and its precisely why it should not get city funding nor should you be considered credible. The GTFO is precisely the point. Its about shoving your views down peoples' throats at any cost because you can't possibly imagine your views are repugnant to some because they are divisive, emotional, confrontational, negative and designed to incite anger and violence. You stated: "Holy shit. Do you know nothing about the history of Pride? About the history of the gay rights struggle as a whole? Do you actually know any queer people?" This coming from someone who made the sweeping blanket generalization that gay pride is simply about being radical and militant. Right. What I do know is that you BD are a presumptious sob who thinks you speak for gay people when you patronized them all and made the sweeping statement they all consider being gay "radical" and "defiant" and they started the gay pride events to be "radical" and "defiant". I know many people who started and joined the events to celebrate who they are not what they aren't-why they feel joy not why they feel angry-why they want to reach out not why they want to tell people to f..ck themselves. You BD try impose your perception of the world on all gays and presume they are all "radical" and "militant" just like you. Instead of asking me if I know gays look at yourself in the mirror. Stop trying to bait me, switch the topic and ask yourself where did you get off coming on this forum presuming to speak on behalf of all gays in suggesting the gay pride event must be about defiance and being radical and militant which is what you stated. Take your smug presumptiousness and righteousness and start your own "radical" and "militant" circle jerk and don't hold your breath getting government funding. You stated: "The 1981 Toronto bathhouse riots? I'll change my above line of query to a statement: you know nothing about the history of Pride or the gay rights struggle as a whole." Oh there we go nyah nyah goo goo. You know nothing of me and the people I defended as a lawyer and why. However your presumptious tone speaks for itself. Keep it up. BD the big bad radical militant who speaks for all gays. Lol. You stated: "Yes, let's instead look at them as you do: cool accessories there to give fashion tips and romantic advice to clueless straights. And above all: be fabulous!" You demonstrate once again what a presumptious, arrogant individual you are among many other things. You presume toc laim to know what I think of gays. That speaks for itself. The above stereotypes you throw out are a direct result of your own insecurities at you may think people think of you. Quite frankly BD from your words all I get the impression of is you are intolerant, self-righteous, and narcisstic if you ask. In regards to gay people in general I take each gay person one at a time. Some I find like you, nauseating extreme left wing presumptious blow hards who think the whole world must listen to their lectures. Others I find no different then me-boring middle of the roaders with no axe to grind. Some I find conservative, others liberal, some libertarian and some I know detest any form of politics. I know gays of every imaginable description no different then I know straights. Now the next time you try pull that presumptious projection on someone think again. No not all of us have to indulge your views and no you don't get the right to negatively stereotype me or anyone else and no you don't get to play the role of victim. Get off it. Debate the issue of city funding or move on. Getting in my face and trying to character assassinate me with such remarks again is a pathetic bait and switch tactic. Its transparent. You stated: "I swear, I'd almost take out and out Mr. Canada-style homophobia over your patronizing, paternalistic, condescending attitude towards gays." Write now genius, read back your last allegation against me and tell me again about engaging in partronizing, paternalistic, condescending attitudes towards gays. You have no problems engaging in them now do you. Oh and while you are at it, tell me again how you presume to speak for all gays when you make the sweeping negeralization that being gay is radical and militant and so the gay celebration of culture must be done in the same manner. Do tell. You stated: "I'm pretty much done here, but I've got one more post to wade through." You were done the moment you tried to argue that allowing an event to become politially partisan doesn't mean its politically partisan. The further attempts to bait me and change the topic and try engage me in a piss on Israel match don't seem to have worked now have they. Get this clear BD-you speak for yourself. No one else. I only claim and have only claimed to speak for myself. Unlike you I have made it clear I express my opinions no one else's. You want to come on this forum and play the role of enlightened one who speaks on behalf of all gays hear it from me when I say-yah right. Oh BD let me tell you what I would tell anyone straight or gay-stop wearing thongs. They make you grumpy.

Fine. There will be no Oleg Bach festival.Just as well. It was proving difficult to find the virgin maidens and we were having problems getting a permit for the sacrifice pit.

I have just one quote for BD who knows full well where the web site is for QUAIA and what they stand for: "But queer Palestinians face the additional challenge of living under occupation, subject to Israeli state violence and control. Israel’s apartheid system extends gay rights only to some, based on race." I know personally a spokesman and founder of this organization. I know what he stands for and why many gays will have nothing to do with him. No I am not playing BD. You want to pretend you don't know what this organization stands for me by guest. I for one am glad Rob Ford has stood up and said no I will not fund any activities with taxpayers' money that gives this group an opportunity to vent. This is a group whose views reflect only a minority in the gay community. Some of us stand up to such groups because we feel they are full of hatred and blinded by their self indulgence. Try as this group may to drive a wedge between not just Israelis but Jews and gays it will not succeed. Jewish and non Jewish gays and Jewish and non Jewish straights will speak up and challenge it. Knock yourself out BD pretending you don't know what its platform is. http://queersagainstapartheid.org/who/

Now then. I just gave a radical gay person in my office a kiss and I know she liked it. I can tell. She asked me for a bagel and told me I lost weight. O.k. where were we.. BD stated: "What do you mean "partisan" events? " I said politically partisan. Go look it up in the dictionary. It means a political view that only expresses one side of a political dispute. You stated: "It's not a partisan event. We're talking about the inclusion of one gay group that paid their way like everyone else for the privilege of participating." Uh hello. If that group then engages in venting its one sided political view then that venting of opinion is politically partisan and turns the event into a politically partisan one by seizing the event as an opportunity to air its one sided opinions. Your point is nonsensical. You are suggesting the event remains apolitical when a politically partisan group uses the vent to vent its one sided political views. No there is no such thing as remaining a virgin once someone sticks a pickle in your jar. You stated: "Cripes, you make it sound like this one group turned the whole thing into a big neo-Nazi rally." I represented participants both Jewish and non Jewish who felt they were betrayed by gay pride and no longer welcome as gays. You stated: "I don't think the politicians should get to interfere in that way. That's not why they fund the parade anyway." Right we know. You want governments to fund your political views and those of groups you approve of. You stated: "You're making my point for me." Ooh I am putting words in your mouth. Yech. You stated: "To be inclusive means allowing any viewpoint.." Nonsense. That makes no sense. To be inclusive means to express view points that are welcome to all. Necessarily politically partisan remarks such as anti Zionist ones made many Jewish gays and many non Jewish gays unwelcome at their own pride event precisely because they felt the views had nothing to do with gay culture. You stated: " even ones you might not agree with." That is illogical. Whether a subject matter is inclusive or exclusive is not dependent on whether I or you agree with it-it is determined by whether it alienates or excludes people and in this case gay people. In this case it did, it excluded gay jews and non gay Jews who did not feel such discussion welcomed them but instead made a time of celebration where they should feel comfortable a place where they felt betrayed and singled out for negative and unfair comments. You stated: "To say "we are going to include everyone...except those groups we don't want" isn't being inclusive. And that's what you're doing here." No I am not saying that or doing it. You again misrepresent what I in fact stated and continue to argue. All I have stated and I will state it yet again-if you allow a time of cultural celebration to be used by a group to vent opinions that necessarily demonize Jewish gays, non Jewish gays and for that matter others who come to the parade and do not wish to hear rants about Israel that have nothing to do with gay culture-then that group makes the event exclusive-it excludes those put off by their selective politically partisan tirades. I haven't done anything. Its the actions of the QUIA that render the event toxic for certain participants. You stated: "I posted a well-written piece on the political nature of this event by the founders of Pride in TO and this is what I get back?" Yep. Right back. I am pleased you think you are well written. See for me someone who says gays are radical because they celebrate being gay to be personally is a ponitificating poser. To me anyone who patronizes gays as radicals and militants because they simply want to be gay and feel positive about it is a poser. Save it. I don't need you to pontificate to me or advertise yourself with self serving descriptions. I challenge your words because I think they are absurd, illogical and a bunch of stuck up leftist pretentious I know better than you bull. That is my opinion and whether you think it well written or not I know how to spell bull, BULL. You stated: "Many people?" Who? How can an event rooted in the political struggle for sexual equality be considered apolitical?" So who do you speak for? Lol. You presume to speak for gays calling them all radicals because they express pride? You presume to speak for all gays saying they want their event hhijacked to make pooo pooo kaka kakaa comments about Israel? See you have to be careful because I was responding to you. I didn't initiate this thread or presume to speak for gays. I speak for myself and those gays I represented or complained to me. I couldn't do much. The issue was a fait accompi and Rev. Brent pulled a fast one on many gay people. In fact the gay community is not finished with this issue and they will resolve it on their own accord and if you think you can presume to try question me then get it clear, I will say it again-I speak for myself. Your attempt to bait and switch and draw me into yet another ridiculous macho contest as to whose righteousness is more genuine is a crock. You speak for yourself and so do I and I never claimed otherwise on this thread. I express my opinions. You stated: "Um. Saying "in my experience" is an inherent acknowledgement of the subjectivity of the statement thet follows." Sorry to me it sounded like someone who does not have enough fibre in their diet. I apologize for that subjective impression. You stated: "Er....what?" Fibre. People should have more fibre in their diet otherwise they keep all their kaka inside and then vent it at the wrong time, such as at gay pride events when no one should be peeing or crapping on anyone else. Trust I made that clear. You stated: "See, this is where I call bullshit. I've seen a lot of discussions about Israel on this board and rarely, if ever, have I seen any overt expressions of antisemitism you describe. Feel free to prove me wrong, but shit like that simply wouldn't wash here." Now you see on that one this is where I say, you are being selective again and no I will not engage you in a debate over it. It is not the issue being debated try as you may to switch the topic. More to the point you made the sweeping generalization that people are quick on this board to cry anti-semitism when people criticize Israel suggesting its being done regularly in an unfair manner not me. You made the allegation not me. No I do not have to disprove your allegation. You made it, you prove it. Go on start a thread and establish the responses where people made unfair anti-semitic allegations-or drop it. Don't try hook me into some ridiculous side arguement that you started and try turn around to get me to disprove. We all know that game BD. You stated: "You concede that you brought up Israel's gay rights record in a discussion that, up until that point, had focused mainly on the matter of the city's funding of the parade. What's the relevance? Or is it just a misdirection away from the issues that QuAIA are trying to raise?" No. It was in direct response to the point you made that QUAIA should be able to attend the gay pride event to be funded by the city and Pride should be funded so that it could then enable QUAIA to single out Israel for non gay politically partisan opinion. It was directly on point. It goes to the hypocracy of this group. This group which you admitted you did not know and had no idea of its agenda (but none the less accused me of being a liar in stating what its agenda was) came to the parade to engage in anti Zionist pro Hamas political ideology. Pure and simple. It openly stated when asked that it did not feel it relevant to discuss the persecution of gays in the Middle East or the fact that Israel regularly and openly takes in gay refugees from the Arab world including Palestine. This group stated it did not feel it relevant that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to have a human rights code protecting gay rights or a court system that had protected the rights of gays from discrimination in court decisions. That is directly on point. It makes a farse of the gay community to single out the only country in the Middle East fighting for gay rights and ignoring that and saying-hey we will ignore gay right-we simply want to use this event for non gay political issues. That was the point. The context of who and what QUIAA is and why not just jewish gays but other gays found its platform repugnant and inappropriate. And before you lecture me on who founded the gay pride events let me make it clear to you-I don't need you to tell me who and why gay people started this event. I am a Jew. I know all about why a visible minority starts a celebration of its culture. Its not to be radical. Its to deal with hatred in a positive way-to look the tormentor in the face and not defy-just be. Israel did not come about because it was defiant. It came about because of the will of Jews to survive. We said yes to life, yes to continued existence, we did not say no to anyone. Neither did gays. They started their communities and events the way we Jews did-to say yes to who they are not no to what they are not. That is what you do not get and I have been arguing. Gay pride is not the time to point out differences. It is the time to point out what we have in common-its the time to be positive not negative. If you don't want to get that and are so hell bent on capturing events to dictate your righteousness try, but people like me will say, beat it. You stated: "You keep making these accusations about QuAIA, but your notably lacking any actual citations." Once again you made the allegation I was a liar not me. So prove it. Put up or shut up. You called me a liar. Prove it. I have nothing to cite to you. I heard their platform first hand at meetings. You stated: "How about some evidence?" Right after you prove me to be a liar. You stated: "Why should QuAIA talk about those Palestinians who flee to Israel?" Because they are gay and fleeing persecution and Israel took them in. You stated: "How about providing citations, links etc? You know: backing up your arguments? Am I to take everything you say at face value?" How about before you defend this group you do your own homework and least make an effort to find out what their platform is. No I am not here to serve you. That self-entitlement is quite something. No I won't spoon feed you.

Oh let me respond to the latest from BD with BD's comments in quote: "It's pretty simple function designed to make posts readable. Taking some contrarian pride in producing nigh-illegible posts is a bit weird, but go nuts." It's not contrarian pride. It is wanting to respond to each remark one at a time. Producing them all in a block makes that problematic. You stated: "You think city funding should be contingent upon the event not allowing viewpoints not relating to gay pride. That's dictating the agenda." No its not dictating the agenda. No one is saying the gay community can't turn its event into a politically partisan one. Never once have I dictated what they can and can not do. keep trying to twist it. Lol. You are the one arguing it should be funded by the city. I am arguing the gay community can have any agenda it wants but if it chooses a politically partisan one then don't expect a government to fund it. You are the one dictating to the city they MUST fund the political agenda and lecturing to me that its acceptable to turn the gay pride day into a politically partisan event. You are the one who continues to make the demands not me. All I am saying is the gay community can do what it wants but yes of course the city has the right to set conditions on what it wants to fund and no it can't fund politically partisan displays precisely because taxpayers money should not be used to favour opinions you deem acceptable. You stated: "I'm saying pride is a political event so politics might come up. Shocking!" ...and I am saying for many gays and straights and myself no we do not think gay pride day or the parade is about anti Israel partisan politics or any partisan politics. Shocking!" You stated: "And if it was a pro-Israel gay group?" I answered that question directly several times and said the city has the right to question any political partisan event. The fact that the partisan opinion would be pro or anti Israel is not and was never the issue-its the fact its partisan that makes it an issue the city can then say-hey wait we won't take any side in any political dispute. You stated: "Who said anything about anti-Zionism anyway?" You and the anti Zionist group you feel should have the right to use the gay pride events to vent its non gay political agenda. You stated: "So they shouldn't get money if they don't take an apolitical approach to selecting participants in their event. You're placing conditions on the funding." Finally you grasped the point I am making. Well it was bound to happen sooner or later. You stated: "Nope. I'm saying the city's decision to fund this event or not shouldn't be contingent upon the event including viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day." ...and I am stating the city has the right to say no it doesn't have to fund "viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day" because the purpose and function of the city is not to fund people's partisan beliefs. Where would it end. What criteria do you propose to determine what "viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day means" means? You throw out that reference but what does it mean other than politically partisan opinions you agree with? Well? I mean talk about baffle gab..."viewpoints unpalatable to the political leadership of the day..". If that was the criteria used for funding oh let's just imagine the line up of groups wanting city funding to air their opinions. First in line I suppose would be you but then I would hope Oleg Bach would next in line so he could present my opinion on the concept of how idiotic it would be for cities to take taxpayers' money and throw it away on such self indulgent subjective nonsense. No the city can not be this unlimited treasury to fund your personal political views or those of groups you approve of. You stated: "You clearly have some reading comprehension or just general comprehension issues here. The city isn't funding this specific group (QuAIA), but Pride TO as a whole." No its you who has the reading comprehension difficulty. At no time did I say the city was funding QUAIA directly as you are suggesting. I am challenging funding for Pride if Pride allows itself to be used for politically partisan purposes by QUIA or any other interest group. Try as you might to try misrepresent what I said and misrepresent my position I have all the patience in the world to continue restating what I actually said to you. The issue is not a bout funding QUIA. Its about funding Pride. Its about funding Pride when it allows QUIA to change its mandate to include politically partisan exercises unrelated to gay culture. If the gay community wants to engage in non cultural and political partisan exercises then the city has the right to say, hey we only fund cultural events-do what you want if that is what you want, just don't ask us to fund the event. You stated: "So no one is asking for anyone's political views to be funded." That is illogical. If Pride is funded and is enabled by that funding to have its event, then it provides the platform from which QUIA can then use the opportunity presented to it by government funding to access an audience it would not otherwise have. So in fact the city would be funding access to an opportunity for QUIA to have a platform it would not otherwise have. You stated: "So to you, Pride is basically the Santa Clause Parade with more cocks. Inoffensive, apolitical, totally neutral." By joe you finally got it. Yes. Well I don't know about the inoffensive part but yes, to me in my personal opinion, and in the opinion of many gays and straights, the Pride event is supposed to be a cultural event, a time of celebration of gay culture and a time to include people in that celebration not change the subject to vent politically partisan views that are not advancing that point. You know it would be one thing to argue that bringing attention to gay persecution in countries is a relevant subject matter. That would be political in nature but technically not partisan if it simply presented the persecution with objective statistics. That pertains to gays. But raving and ranting about Israel and ignoring gay persecution in the Middle East as QUIA did makes a farse of gay pride. It says its not the issue and the culture of gays can be shunted to the side and be used as a pretext to access an audience for another agenda. That is b.s. Stop hijacking what is supposed to be a positive celebration of gay culture for partisan political agenda that has nothing to do with gay people and their rights as gays. You stated: "I disagree. Pride is about the struggle for human rights." Stop playing. No Pride is not about being anti Zionist and raving and ranting in a partisan manner about non gay issues. No raving and ranting about Zionism has nothing to do with gays. You want an event to protest Israel create one. Stop trying to change the Pride day event into a pretext to single out your criticism of Israel and then couching it as a "struiggle for human rights". What a crock. tThe QUIA was not discussing gay human rights. It wasn't talking about gays persecuted in Muslim or Middle East countries. It wasn't even talking human rights. It was advancing a pro Hamas platform. See unlike you I don't couch its agenda. You stated: " It's a celebration, yes, but it's also an act of defiance. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." is not an apolitical statement, but a radical one." First of all the above celebration is not defiant. Secondly its not a radical statement. It is simply an expression of identity. Defiant? See I know you have no clue about gays if you talk like that. Gays do not defy anyone being who they are. They don't defy anyone. They are simply being them. You might think it radical. Why would a gay person? How is it radical for a gay person to be gay. Its what they are? What am I radical because I say I am a Jew? Does that make me defiant if I celebrate my Jewish culture at Purim? Are Christians defiant because they celebrate Christmas? Are Irish people defiant because they celebrate Saint Patrick's day? What a patronizing thing to say about gay people. Its a celebration of joy and happiness. Gay people didn't start the parade or the festivities to give straight people the finger or homophobes the finger. They didn't do it to defy. They did it to welcome. They did it so straight people like me can embrace gays. If they were being defiant they would be rioting and screaming and burning their thongs for phack's sake. Would you stop stereotyping gays as radicals or militants simply because they want to dance and let it hang out. Give it a rest. The fact you want to be defiant and see public displays as an opportunity to be defiant and lecture people does not mean everyone else does. Gawd would you please sit down with a gay person and have a glass of wine and learn how to discuss something other than your political views. Maybe talk about penis rings or thongs or whether size is important. Must it always be something angry and decisive? You mean to tell me gays are radical because they want to celebrate their music, their art, their positive feelings? Its about not having to repress who they are and celebrate positive thoughts and feelings not engage in war with straight people or change the subject and vent about Zionists. Its about gay culture. You want to make fun of the Santa Claus parade go ahead but are you that out of it? Are you suggesting it is appropriate for the QUIA to show up at the Santa Claus Parade. You want the IRA marching in the St. Pat's parade? You want the KKK hijacking Christmas celebrations? Uh yah sometimes its o.k. to say, no this is not the time and place. Maybe in your world no one has ever said no to you but I am and so are many people gay and straight. No. There is a time and place for your anti Zionist demonstrations and no it doesn't belong at gay pride events any more then it does the Santa Claus Parade or St. Pat's day. Hard as it is for you to believe some people just want to celebrate culture and not be held captive at their events for your political opinions and views. Go create your own parade. There you can burn all the bagels you want. I will finish my responses in the next post. I first need to go kiss a gay person and give them a bagel.

Say now that means the Lebanese government should use force to disarm Hezbollah. Ooopsy. You want to back track or say something funny like Hezbollah is not violating any international laws...