Rue

The problem though is your arguements are subjective not objective and based on your personal beliefs as to what should be the appropriate values we all follow. Yes I know you feel your opinion as to the values we should have should be like the good old days when things were black and white and there were clear cut lines drawn between good (the allies) and the bad (the Axis) but we do not live in that era. More to the point while you think things were black and white in the good old days they were not. They were no different then they are today. Go find out how many good Christians with string family values were sympathetic to Hitler and and felt people had to know their place. Be honest. Isn't your nostalgia really based on...the feeling you are no longer top dog in a world of too many who think they are equal to you and now have the same rights as you? Is it political correctness that really bugs you or the fact the good old days where a good Christian was white and everyone else was inferior and segregated no longer exists? I also question how you talk of soldiers. do you think soldiers want you to glorify their having to kill people? That is the last thing they want and I know because I take the time to talk and learn from veterans and have never met one who has not warned me to stay away from people who glorify war for the wrong reasons. What they want from you is that you show in your actions you can be tolerant and take advantage of your democractic system they die for. They have to fight a new war. It's not clear bad guys v. good guys. The last thing they can be is rigid and inflexible like you and see things in black and white. Today's soldier fights an enemy with no uniform or visible identity. So they have to be flexible, open-minded and no they can not sit around lamenting the fact that the enemy does not all look the same and always cry out "Achtung!" or "Banzai". You want to be of support to the Canadian troops, stop lamenting the good old days and try understand what they have to deal with today. That is precisely why today's Canadian soldier is not the World War Two soldier of the past although they retain the honour code and traditions to remind them and us what we stand for. They have had to change because times have changed. Their role is not just conventional warfare but other things as well. They know their actions not their words are what Afghanis watch and that is why I admire them so much. I can not imagine how hard it must be to have to fight an invisible enemy that could be the very citizens you also have to treat gently and politely because you don't know whether someone is or is not a terrorist and you know if you alienate a non terrorist civilian you could turn them into a terrorist. It is an impossible job they are managing and yet they do it and die for it and I salute them and their dedication and transforming the world war two army into an every evolving institution where soldiers take on the impossible precisely because they have been trained to be flexible and open mind and know when to apply their discipline. You and I have to do the same. Talk is cheap. You want to really impart your wisdom or what you feel proper values are? I say learn from our soldiers. Learn it is what you do, not what you say that spreads the message. Show in your actions the values you think are appropriate. Words as to what is wrong will not work on the next generation they never have. They did not work on you when you were younger and they will not work on the young today. Words mean nothing. Its our actions the young will watch and learn from. So we have to do things as part of charitable or community projects or if you really believe in religion, through your church. People understand when you do something with your hands and through your actions to help people. That is what our soldiers are doing. They are not just killing. They are not just one dimensional characters that march and kill. They feel, they think, they experience pain both physical and emotional precisely because it is not black and white and with every step they take something unexpected can happen. We owe them to govern ourselves in a similiar manner and not be afraid of the unknown and the need to change. That is what they are teaching us. Er at least so I think.

I hope you do not live in Toronto and plan to visit a restaurant on the Danforth.

You are ruining everything by being well informed, logical, and accurate. Can you not just be a misguided, know it all opinionated lout like the rest of us!!! Lol. Stick around. We may need you as the new leader of the coalition.

as for accusing the Liberals of being corupt and scandal ridden duh. Now look at the Tories Wolf. You better start looking. If you think you are dealing with moral virgins look again. Take a look at today's disclosures at how much money they are spending on "consulting" firms. Nothing has changed. Its the same patronage b.s. being handed out. Don't kid yourself. Harper is repeating what Chretien did and his Ministers seem to have forgotten the Reform platform and have no problems wasting money on needless travel and junkets. Every party that comes into power vows it will be different and then engages in the same corupt patronage b.s.

I think what you see is that the vast majority of the Liberal caucus is behind Ignatieff not Rae who inspired the coalition. They will forcefully appoint Ignatieff this week rendering Rae and Dion an after thought. The coalition will be done like dinner. Ignatieff will save face and have Harper throw in some tid bits for the car industry and Ignatieff will pull the Liberals out. There is no way Ignatieff is going to run for an election having served in the same government as the NDP or indirectly with the Bloc. Its a no brainer. The coalition was a little scheme hatched up by the Chretien-Dion-Rae-Kennedy liberals who know they are done like dinner in the new Ignatieff run Liberals. Ignatieff of course is the inheritor of the Paul Martinites. We still see Chretien and Martin supporters after all this time playing games with the Liberals in a free for all but it looks like it is coming to an end. As much as the Liberals are internally divided and looked exactly like that with a free for all of spokespersons trying to run the party I find what Harper did odious. He deliberately pushed an unpopular decisive bill intended to cause conflict and dissension. Its classic Guy Giardino the Mike Harris advisor now in charge of Harper and thinking he could use the same strategy Harris used to get his majority governments in Ontario-divide and conquer by creating scapegoat targets. Only now instead of teachers, nurses, people on welfare, Harper has "seperatists (i.e., ungrateful Quebecers who did not support him), Liberals, NDP'ers, unions, Atlantic Canadians, urban dwellers, Torontonians, etc. Harper is a nasty sob. Ignatieff will call on the Martin Liberals or blue Liberals the majority of Liberals who want a moderate government that seeks a balance between economic and social needs to keep himself in power and if Harper does not watch it, Ignatieff will pull away from the Tories the Red Tories, the moderate wing of the Tories that have been repressed and basically under the tyranny of the Social Credit-Reform rump of the Tories who have kept them under control and shut up. Its clear Harper has been able to create an internal structure in the Tory party to keep the moderate Joe Clark-Peter McKay wing shut up but they are watching and want him gone just as much Liberals are fed up with this Rae-Dionne-NDP circus. The middle moderates in both the Tories and Liberals have emerged. It will force Harper to back down, Ignatieff to back down and some semblance of cooling off where we will see a minority Tory government rule a minimum of a year. Whether Harper self destructs or learns from this fiasco to sit down and try be a statesman and a leader and emulate William Davis not Mike Harris remains to be seen. as long as Guy Giardino is around with Flaherty this kind of nasty confrontationist divide and conquer mentality will fan Harper's already incredibly immature thin skin.

So Wulf do explain how you will identify, arrest and convict these terrorists. It is easy to rave and rant and take articles out of context to suggest terrorists are running around at will. Anyone can do that. Now go the next step. Explain how you will be able to identify these terrorists and obtain sufficient proof to convict them. Or are you saying you want to skip the legal process and just start rounding up people that have beards or perhaps anyone with a funny sounding name and hold them indefinitely in prison camps? See its one thing to cry wolf, its another to actually know how to identify a wolf let alone one that is an actual danger to sheep.

Rumsfeld a Jew? Ahahahahaah. Right. George Bush's real name was Finkleberg. His son's name was Hyman but the Hyman Bush thing did not work so they changed it to George. O.k. let's be serious. Clearly Dick Chaney is Jewish-real name Saul Cohen. Hilary Clinton? Try Amanda Steinberg. There is so much I know, and so little time to share. Excuse me, I have to go imitate a gentile. " Gosh. Darn it. Golly. Say now. Yes indeedy. Pass the mayonaisse please. Who is up for a game of golf? I love my Oldsmobile. Camilla Parker Bowles is lovely." Now if you really want to know how my people communicate, simply watch the Judges on So You Think They Can Dance. They are all us. Of course.

Stop it. If you are going to make sense you will have to move to another thread. There is no need for that. Let's get back to the real topic. Why have I taken over the board. Because its what I do. I conspire and control things. Its my destiny to mind control all of you and turn you into Olegs. Soon you will all wear red yamakas like Oleg and his friend the Pope. You are warned. Even BC Chick has fallen for my spell and has cravings for bagels and lox. But of course the lox is from B.C. not Atlantic Canada.

Check to see if they own any banks, or produced any movies in Hollywood.

BC chick you can refer to me as an animal if you want. At my age I could do with such a complement.

So I guess we are not moving Israelis to Mumbai.

The Pakistani intelligence service created and financed the Kashmir seperatist group that was the predecessor to the current group that carried out these attacks. It may be however the current Pakistanti intelligence service has lost control of this group or lost control of this group and are not necessarily behind it or aware of it. Then again it would provide an excellent diversion by the Pakistanis to get people off of their back about their refusing to control terrorists on the Afghani border and refocus attention back to the Kashmir and internal India Muslim situation. Then again this could have been orchestrated by those seeking to drag India into the war against terror and open a second front with Pakistan to allow the Western forces to be able to attack terrorists on the Afghani-Pakistan border while Pakistan diverts its attention to Kashmir and India. There could be aall kibnds of agendas. I am suprised no one has blamed Israel yet. Soon though I bet. In any event, what we do know is Pakistanti intelligence is strongly linked to terrorists in Afghanistan including the Taliban and Kashmiri seperatist Mulsim extremist groups. To pretend they are innocent in this matter is really pushing it. What it also shows is how 10 young men with not that many weapons could do so much terror so quickly. There was no need to blow up buildings either. The random killings and shooting sprees have done what they were psychologically intended to do, make Indians feel fragile and helpless and afraid and it shows how slow moving their conventional forces are. This terror attack could have happened anywhere using the same scenario. I am guessing in Israel or Britain it may have been responded to more quickly because of their respective experiences with terror. What we do know is India is a sleeping giant that has been aroused. This will fuel their militant Hindu parties. We have not heard the last on this. There will be retailiation somewhere for this. Muslim-Hindu relations within India will suffer because once again some wing nuts in the name of Muhammed have decided to kill and terrorize and it was a good thing they killed those ultra orthodox Jews-God knows they were a threat.

Because that is what the law requires. He is legally the head of the Liberal Party. Until he is no longer the head of the Liberal party, he is their Chief Minister. There is no legal precedent to choosing a Prime Minister from a political party by ignoring that party's leader. It would have been legally challenged. This way it can not be. It is clear Dion's mandate is extremely limited and just until the new Liberal leader is appointed. The practical reality is this is a caretaker coalition. The new Liberal leader in June will disband the coalition. There is no way Ignatieff or Rae or Leblank will continue with Layton. Not a chance. Imagine the scenario. Layton and Rae? Right. Ignatieff and Layton? Hah. Not going to happen. This is a temporary aberation designed to give Harper the finger for giving all three other parties the finger. Harper believes this will cause a back-lash to give him his majority, Layton feels a few months in power will show Canada he is a sensible communist when given a government post to run, and the Liberals I have no idea what is in it for them. Dion necessarily will be a lame duck good and I suppose they can blame any mistakes on Layton for not allowing them to do what they had to do. But it will be interesting to see Ignatieff or Rae trying to distance themselves from Layton while being Ministers in the same government as him. My bet is Ignatieff wins, and then immediately distances himself from Layton and takes a non financial post probably External Affairs where he can do what he does wax poetic about human rights and world affairs. Rae, I am not sure. The suddenly capitalist former socialist is going to be out of place in any position they give him. He may want a position such as Industry where he can take credit for saving the car industry. John McCallum right now is whether he likes it or not, being an ex banker, the Finance Minister already. It would make the most sense putting him in at Finance for now with Goodale as the other seasoned veteran either in Treasury or the Transport or in charge if infrastructure rebuilding. You know the NDP will be given environment and Labour and probably Human Resources and Culture. If NDP gets the Health Ministry this is a signal the government will not last maybe not even until June-the NDP is committed to big time spending particularly in health while the right wing of the Liberals lead by Ignatieff are dead against it. If Dominic Leblan is lucky they can give him Daddy's old Ministry of Fisheries portfolio.

Sorry you are wrong. Parliament has been specifically designed to assure a ruling government in one of two ways; i-a party with a majority of seats; ii-a party with a minority of seats which requires they have support from members of other parties to pass a bill. In regards to ii, the constitution and the law and the government system is clear. You do not automatically call an election simply because there is no majority government and you keep holding elections until a majority government is obtained. That is nonsense. A minority government rules by obtaining cooperation of others from across the floor. If it can not then the other parties BEFORE there is an election have the legal right to form a coalition government or form an agreement as they have, to rule and guarantee sufficient votes to keep them going. In fact it would be undemocratic to ignore the majority of the people voted into Parliament for the sake of one political party. Democracy is about parties cooperating and forming alliances, it is not just one party wins and rules all. It has never been about one party rule. That is why we have an opposition and that is why our system allows coalitions. No the Governor General can not call an election simply because the Tories say so. She first according to the constitution and law (she is only a symbolic position, she has no discretion) has to allow the process to ascertain whether other parties can form a majority to rule. If they can, the GG does not and can not exercise any discretion. The GG has only two choices neither of which are her decision. Either she calls an election because all parties agree that there should be one, or she appoints a government based on the party or parties which indicate they have the confidence of the house to pass bills. If and only if the Liberal-NDP coalition falls apart, the GG then by law and the constitution, would then call an election because then there would have been two failed governments. Until all possibilities to rule have failed, an election is not called. The GG is merely a symbolic position that carries out the wishes of the ruling government or where the ruling government is defeated any alternative coalition until that coalition is defeated. Its actually no that complicated. We have a government that has 4 parties and none of them have a majority. So those that coalesce rule in such situations. That is the majority ruling. You can bitch all you want about the Bloc Quebecois but they have not done anything illegal or immoral or hippocritical. You want to poibnt fingers point them at Harper and Layton and that nasty Jean Chretien who could not resist putting the screws to Harper. I doubt very much Ignatieff or Rae saw this coming. Its very Much a Chretien-Layton manouver, two obsessed ego maniacs responding to the ego maniac Harper. Harper has no one but himself and that idiot Guy Guardino and the fool Flaherty to blame for this. If Guy Giardino and Flaherty think Canadians will blame unions, political parties other then the Tories and the unemployed for the current problems, they are mistaken. Let them eat cake Flaherty says-and now the cake is thrown back in his face.

I again am with G Bem on this. There has been no constitutional or legal crisis anyone who suggests there is, is engaging in hyperbole. Harper was free to do what he did. He gambled. His mistake was mixing two seperate issues, the funding of political parties with the over all economic plan issue. Was he that stupid or was it deliberate. Some say he acted in the heat of the moment and was being stupid others say he was being deliberate. I believe had Harper stood up in Parliament and said in a frank and non confrontational tone that we are headed for hard times, and his team would have to wait until Obama's is in place before a proper plan could be implemented, people would have understood. Instead he chose to do two things. deliberately add a cost cutting measure as to funding political parties he knew was giving all three of the other parties the finger. Had his proposal been passed all three political parties would have become bankrupt. He knew that. It was deliberately insulting and provocative and there is no excuse for it. Why he did that we will never know. Some say it shows his thin skin and the nasty side of him. What we do know is by attaching that to the economic issue, he handed the three parties a death sentence and when you corner any animal and threaten its life as he did of course they will fight back with every means available. In regards to the economy if he felt it was too early to do anything until he met with Obama then say so and sit and be calm. Harper however spoke with 2 sides of his mouth. One the one hand he told everyone to be calm and wait for Obama, but then in the next breath does what-has Flaherty signal they will start selling off government assets in a depressed market? What kind of message is that? The message about civil servants not being able to strike what was that? Does anyone think the civil service or any union right now is in the positition to strike? Why the slap at the civil service union which is already weak and down and out? Why slap something when its down? Why tell people losing their jobs and homes that the government is not ready to stimulate the economy but it is willing to cut services to assure there is no deficit? It was manhandled. The same cuts could have been done very quietly. Instead Flaherty stood up and taunted people. It was pure Guy Guardino Mike Harris's crony now advising Harper and Flaherty completely contradicting what Haper had said and engaging in Mike Harris politics-divide and conquer-in bad times find bad guys to blame, i.e., civil servants, the other political parties. I do not think Layton or Dion should be leading this country. A coalition of a lame duck Liberal leader with Ignatieff and Rae chomping at his butt and the ego maniac Jack Layton who can not shut up even at a press conference is not the recipe for a government but Harper has no one but himself to blame for it. He chose to be rude and give not just the other parties, but all Canadians the finger. He is still having tantrums about not winning a majority and if he thinks a weak coalition for a few months making a mess of things will back lash into getting him his majority he is wrong. The moderates in his party, the so called Paul Martin Liberals and Red Tories that frequent the left and right wing of their respective parties are fed up. They do not want socialism anymore then they want social creditism disguised as Canadian conservatism. The vast majority of us want someone in the center who can balance common fiscal sense with compassion for the economically displaced. We do not want extremism to either side. That is why the majority of us are divided as to who we voted for. That is why ironically now all of you who wanted a government based on popular representation have precisely the kind of coalition building such schemes require. We have become Italy. Great. Don't get me wrong I love Carla Bruni and all Italian women, but this unstable coalition building and extremist butt heads I do not like.

On a more positive note, 50 synagogues and mosques have just come together across North America to engage in twinnings or reltionship alliances where a synagogue and a mosque match up and send congregants to each other's place of worship and engage in cultural exchanges. Christian churches to are doing the same with synagogues and mosques. Its true there are some extremist mosques. Just as there are probably extremist churches or synagogues. I agree believe any extremist intolerant house of worship is conducive to tolerance in a democractic society.

Jews like Muslims (not Arabs if we are to use the proper analogy) are a wide mix of people. Jews and Muslims both originate from the same Middle East and both have travelled and have inter-mixed to become a rainbow mix of peoples-no Jew or Muslim is any more unique genetically then any other human-we are all mutts-we are all mixed-in terms of culture and ethnic traditions, yes Jews have unique characteristics just as Muslims and Christians and everyone else. "Arabs" a term incorrectly used to describe all Muslims is about as useful as mixing up the use of the word "Jew" when discussing the perceived, race, ethnicity, or religion of Jewish people. All an Arab is, is an approximation of people who are descended from the Beduins. I can't stand how Jew and Arab and Muslim are thrown about incorrectly. Jews are aboriginal to the Middle East. So are Muslims and Christians. The fact that all three moved and inter-bred does not change that fact. All three peoples have caucasians, negroids and mongoloids if we must use those old ancient racial classifications. Each ethnic group in the world insists they are unique. They are but they are also not unique if we look at their dna. It depends on the construct you want to use to describe people. The one I use is simeon. The fact that some of us apes have different coloured fur does not mean we aren't all flea infested apes.

Oleg I was enjoying your passages until you slipped in this subjective negative stereotype; "... that most that call themselves Jews are NOT decended from the Judeans - they are common semites just like the Arabs they so much hate..." Your assumption all Jews hate Arabs is as absurd as saying all Arabs hate Jews. Those kinds of comments that make sweeping negative assumptions as to the beliefs and motives of an entire people being the same is illogical.

Tell me Kengs is this the reasonable debate you refer to? the above is nothing more then you once again engaging in blatant anti-semitic stereotyping. You make sweeping negative generalizations about the motives, thoughts and beliefs of all Jews and then spew them out as if they are fact. That Kengs makes you an ignorant hateful bigot precisely where such posts head. They start with an alleged defence of Muslims and Arabs and turn into what? Kengs the above comments are blatantly anti-semitic, hateful and ignorant. They are not based on fact. They are based on your hatred and continual need to incite people to hate Jews. Its a classic example of how you will hijack posts to engage in your own agenda. You come on this forum uninterested in anything anyone has to say. Its simply a platform for you to spew hatred. Say now Buffy are you going to challenge what he said or remain silent?

True. Oh so true. As for the negative existential slime I may have unintentionally dropped on the astral planes I appreciate your being patient with me. I am coming back to pick it up.

areyouaccusingmeofrunonsentenceswhyhowcanyousaythatimeanthatsuprisesemeyouwoulds ythatbecauseiamrealcarefultoyouusepunctuationandstufflikethatwhileiamwriting. Lol. You do have a point J!

Keng show this forum one post or thread you have presented that referred to corroborated fact or substantiated references. You have never once written anything other then your own subjective opinions. You would love to debate in a reasoned manner? Kengs read back the above. You would have people believe the reason you do not debate in a reasonable manner (at least you concede that) is because of me. Think how silly that is Kengs. Are you suggesting I control your mind Kengs? What stops you Kengs from being reasonable is precisely the same kind of phenomena that leads you to write such silly and absurd accusations suggesting I prevent you from being reasonable-your refusal to accept responsibility for your own actions and words. That Kengs is why you are unable to do anything but come on this board and whether you write about Jews, other Christians, gays, women, soldiers, engage in subjective name calling followed by insulting people who respond to you. No Kengs you are not a victim and no Kengs your silly sugegstion I am the reason you are not reasonable is about as meaningful in contribution as Aras coming on this forum to tell others not to be hateful while engaging in hateful comments. His words drew you like a fly to cow dung and yes Kengs I tend to challenge people like Aras to pick up his droppings so it does not attract flies like you who seize it as an opportunity to spread their own germs.

O.k. try read what I am saying slowly. Why is it you make sweeping negative generalizations about all Israelis or anyone who support's Israel's right to exist, but tell people not to do the same when discussing Arabs and Muslims? See your point is that you think it is acceptable to engage in sweeping negative generalizations that have no substantiation, as long as its about Israelis or Israeli supporters. That Sir, is why people laugh at you. Because you can't see how contradictory and inconsistent your comments are. You try hold people to a different standard then you. In fact when you engage in your negative generalizations all they will do is attract flies to shit not people to a reasoned discussion and debate. Treat people the way you want to be treated, show people in your actions, how you think they should act. Your message so far has been; "Hey you fucking idiots, stop using the fuck word you fuckers." I trust that analogy is not too difficult for you to grasp.

This is why you have zero credibility. You have come on this forum to engage in the very same thing about Israelis as you tell people not to do with Arabs and Muslims.

You again do not get it. I never claimed to speak on behalf of anyone or think for anyone. If it had not been me someone else would have said it and Bambino filled in the gap and responded to the other point you made that I did not because quite frankly I got so angry I lost focus. You insulted my father. You insulted my Uncles. You insulted my friend that died. You insulted people like Army or others who I do not presume to speak for but sure as hell will not forget. You insult the vets at Sonnybrook Hospita and who I will die seeing in my mind from the Queen Mary Hospital in Montreal which now no longer exists. You insult people in wheel-chairs and with painful lung ailments and illnesses you have no clue about. You insult people who live the remainder of their lives always feeling inside them pain and remorse. You can not see or imagine any feeling other then your own and all you now see is a popularity contest. Its not about being popular Keng-its about respecting people who sacrificed their lives precisely because they want us to be civil to one another and follow laws so we do not end up destroying each other. You are dead wrong Keng and its not about you and you really do need now to walk away. I mean it Keng go to Sonnybrook hospital and talk with a Vet. Until you do. Until you make an effort to see the flesh and blood you ridicule and stereotype, you will continue to be the poorer for it.