Rue

Let us get real. Provide the proof that Jesus rejected Judaism. You made a sweeping theological statement now back it up. The statement is based on a classic anti-semitic phallacy. Get this straight. There is ZERO I repeat ZERO record of Jesus existing. ZERO. Anything attributed to having been said by him as is the case with his existence is heresay. More to the point the Bible which is a series of edited manuscripts of writings that were written by unknown people then rewritten and rewritten again are not first hand comments by Jesus just what humans wrote down they thought he would have said. If there was a Jesus he would have been a Rabbia. Its also highly likely he travelled to India and learned his medicine their and likewise would have studied Hinduism and Buddism and probably found both disciplines extremely compatible with the Talmud. Nothing in what Jesus is alleged to have preached is anything different then what is taught in the Talmud, and in Hinduism and Buddism. The notion of a Rabbia claiming he was the son of God is a man made story. For all you know he said he was A son of God and we are all sons and daughters of Gid. Religious discussions end up like this. People assuming truth based on their own faith beliefs. The rejection you speak of began and it ends with humans convinced they are right and anyone else who does not think like them is wrong. As for the Golden Rule comment, it is the kind of cheap smarmy anti-semitic comment I am coming to expect from its originator.

I doubt it. No one messes with the Queen of England.* *Elton John

Me have a preprejudice? Moi? Mr. Hugs and Kisses To All? Of course. Breshnev will do it. So would Hitler, Saddam, or Hussein if someone chose those as forum names. Oh call me silly that way. Regards, Attila.

Betman you mean Gary Betman, NHL Commissioner? If you do realize he is considered an infidel in Canada.

Here Argus go knock yourself out with the following studies that would disagree with you. http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publ...pedophilia.html http://www.meldpunt-kinderporno.nl/files/B...0Pedophilia.pdf http://criminology.utoronto.ca/faculty/michaelseto.htm http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Cr...amp;%20Ecke.pdf http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...000/rr00_5.html http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/effectsBiblio.pdf http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm http://nopornnorthampton.org/files/28534-2...n_Optimized.pdf

Agus you stated "This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes." It shows consumption fuels opportunity and access to pedophilia. That was the point and something you seem to keep denying. You quote' "Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data." and then stated; "Doesn't exactly support your views." I deliberately put it in Argus because what I have attempted to do is provide non religious non moral research but acknowledge the above is what is being argued. I am not someone who just cites things to support my arguements. You stated; "I don't need any nonsense from "Morality in Media" thanks. Leave the bible thumpers out of this. I know what they think of porn." Everyone knows I am no fundamentalist nor do I subscribe to fundamentalist religious approaches to sexual relationships but it is part of the dialogue and that is why I cited it, so people can compare. You stated; "Basically seems to agree with me, and points out that while the proliferation of violent porn has increased in Japan actual sex crimes have decreased." Come on Argus read it. It says when opportunity and access to pedophilia is restricted crimes decrease. It is showing exactly what I am getting at and that getting into a debate as to whether the porno causes the pedophile to act is not the issue, opportunity and access to children is. You stated; "I'm not going to read a 168 page report, thanks. Perhaps you'd care to summarize?" That's exactly what the problem is Argus. You ignore many things. "Did you even read any of your own cites?" Well we know you don't but still argue against them. Not exactly credible Argus. More to the point, in an effort to try be credible I didn't just provide cites that support my own views, and you then assume because they don't agree with my views I couldn't possibly have read them. You stated; Huh? I can cite all many of large scale studies conducted by scientific researchers into this which go completely counter to the statement above." Please do. That is the point. You stated; " In fact, a number of such studies are listed in the cites above which you apparently didn't read. But those are real studies which are documented and which can be examined for the reliability of their data." So list them so we can have an appropriate debate. You stated; " However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children." However above comment would not support your contention nor does it repudiate mine. You stated; "Again, who did the study? What were their qualifications? How were the offenders selected - other than them being in prison? We need to know these things before we can accept a claim which runs counter to established research." Argus probide the established research you keep referring to and I will in the next post present the research I am referring to. You stated; "Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation." The above comment Argus is what I am criticizing. The issue when it comes to studying the relationship between child pronography and sex crimes is whether child pornography creates networks for pedophiles to meet each other and gain opportunity and access to children. Its whether it enables the financing of sex crimes and the fact it is evidence a crime of pedophilia was committed on a child for each and every child porno tape we see. To suggest child pornography does not cause pedophilia is absurd. To make this conclusion you pretend the children in these movies are not children. You stated; " If you're a sex maniac out attacking women you almost certainly consume a lot of porn. " You now mix up a different kind of sexual behaviour with pedophila. If consenting adults want to engage in sado-masochism that is one thing. If they are into fetish behaviour and use safe words it is their business. However it becomes society's business if the people in adult movies did not participate in them of their own free will. It becomes society's business if women were actually mutilated or hurt -then it is a cirme. You stated: "That doesn't take a genius to figure out." Then why do you keep missing the obvious point, an adult is not a child. A child can not form free consent. A child placed in a child porno tape is a victim of pedophilia. You stated; "You're entitled to believe whatever you want. It's just that there is no actual evidence to back up your belief, simply hysterical statements and often misguided exagerations by people who are not acredited researchers of any kind, with no provision of statistical evidence or factual documentation to back it up." In the next post I provided research to repudiate the above in its entirety.

Agus you stated "This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes." It shows consumption fuels opportunity and access to pedophilia. That was the point and something you seem to keep denying. You quote' "Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data." and then stated; "Doesn't exactly support your views." I deliberately put it in Argus because what I have attempted to do is provide non religious non moral research but acknowledge the above is what is being argued. I am not someone who just cites things to support my arguements. I try cite many sides of the arguement. I am not someone who argues there is only one right arguement. I try show mine but compare it to others and then let people decide so they do not think I am a shrill. You stated; "I don't need any nonsense from "Morality in Media" thanks. Leave the bible thumpers out of this. I know what they think of porn." Everyone knows I am no fundamentalist nor do I subscribe to fundamentalist religious approaches to sexual relationships but it is part of the dialogue and that is why I cited it, so people can compare. You stated; "Basically seems to agree with me, and points out that while the proliferation of violent porn has increased in Japan actual sex crimes have decreased." Come on Argus read it. It says when opportunity and access to pedophilia is restricted crimes decrease. It is showing exactly what I am getting at. You have gone off on this arguement that people who watch children have sex on the internet can't be proven to have sex with children. What I have tried to show you is that is not the issue. Cause and effect by simply looking at whether it motivates pedophilia is not the issue which you have gone off on. Its opportunity and access to pedophila. If pornography can be shown to create opportunity and access to children, that is the issue. You stated; "I'm not going to read a 168 page report, thanks. Perhaps you'd care to summarize?" That's exactly what the problem is Argus and a problem you would be the first to point out is the weakness in someone else's arguements-that we don't take the time to read-we prefer instead to limit ourselves to easy, quicker, black and white articles and things that do not require us to look at the grey of the issue. Me I have read numerous reports from all sides of the equation and what the above report clearly documented is that child pornography on the internet cultivates and enhances opportunity and access to pedophilia activities - it provides networking for pedophiles to find children to exploit. It finances and funds organized crime directly linked to the sexual exploitation of children. More importantly and you seem to have totally missed the point, who do you think are in these films? Midgets? Paid union actors? "Did you even read any of your own cites?" Funny you just admitted you don't but still argue against them which is not exactly credible. More to the point, in an effort to try be credible I didn't just provide cites that support my own views, and you seem to think that means I did not read them because I should only be quoting things that match my opinions. I am not just trying to present my opinions. I am trying to acknowledge there are many opinions and I tried to provide different opinions so people do not think I am only interested in my own. Now you take this comment; "The concern that countries allowing pornography and liberal anti-obscenity laws would show increased sex crime rates due to modeling or that children or adolescents in particular would be negatively vulnerable to and receptive to such models or that society would be otherwise adversely effected is not supported by evidence." and then state; "This last is the kind of scaremongering nonsense used by a variety of agencies largely to push their 'scary-scary' agenda - and not coincidentally, to get more money for their agencies to combat it. No actual documention or studies are cited which can be refuted by researchers." Interesting. I provide you documentation and you say you didn't read it. You stated; Huh? I can cite all many of large scale studies conducted by scientific researchers into this which go completely counter to the statement above." Please do. That is the point. You stated; " In fact, a number of such studies are listed in the cites above which you apparently didn't read. But those are real studies which are documented and which can be examined for the reliability of their data." So list them so we can have an appropriate debate. You stated; " However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children." Actually you are wrong again. But hey why let that stop you. You stated; "Again, who did the study? What were their qualifications? How were the offenders selected - other than them being in prison? We need to know these things before we can accept a claim which runs counter to established research." Argus probide the established research you keep referring to and I will do my best to provide research that proves it antiquated. You stated; "Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation." The above comment Argus is what I am criticizing now. The issue when it comes to studying the relationship between child pronography and sex crimes is whether child pornography creates networks for pedophiles to meet each other and gain opportunity and access to children. Its whether it enables the financing of sex crimes. Most importantly and the most blatant and obvious thing you seem to be in complete denial of, to suggest child pornography does not cause pedophilia is absurd. To make this conclusion you pretend the children in these movies are not children. You stated; " If you're a sex maniac out attacking women you almost certainly consume a lot of porn. " You now mix up a different kind of sexual behaviour with pedophila. First of all if someone is attacking women, its not pedophilia. Secondly what we do know is the usual psychiatric profile of a man who attacks a woman falls into many categories of personality disorders, some sexual, some not sexual at all. More importantly the man engaging in the violence may or may not get off on violent pornopgraphy and the violent pornography may or may not empower him to believe his violence is acceptanle. However the issue of opportunity and access to women to abuse them for an adult male is a completely different issue then when we talk of pedophilia and child pornography. For me, you are now trying to compare apples to oranges thinking they are the same. They are not. Look snuff films where women are mutilated and killed can be the real thing. We now that. Movies of actual murders have been filmed. That is absolute bullshit. Me personally I believe pornography with adults is an entirely different issue but if it depicts real violence and murder that has to be criminalized and contained. If consenting adults want to engage in sado-masochism that is one thing. They are into fetish behaviour and they use safe words and it is their business. However it becomes society's business if the people in the movies did not participate in them of their own free will and were properly paid and were not hurt. It becomes society's business if women are being mutilated or hurt because it can be shown such activity assisted a criminal engage in an act. No I am not saying go out and censor adult pornography. However I am saying it has to be monitored and regulated to make sure it does not intentionally finance criminal activities. You stated: "That doesn't take a genius to figure out." Then why do you keep missing the obvious point, an adult is not a child. A child can not form free consent. A child placed in a child porno tape is a victim of pedophilia. You stated; "You're entitled to believe whatever you want. It's just that there is no actual evidence to back up your belief, simply hysterical statements and often misguided exagerations by people who are not acredited researchers of any kind, with no provision of statistical evidence or factual documentation to back it up." Again Argus what is hysterical about statingt he obvious- a child in a moving forced to engage in sex acts is a victim of pedophilia. How is that hysterical? Argus I have sat in a room with dozens of pedophiles. Some of them use child pornography to masterbate and relieve their sexual tensions but it postpones the inevitable. Whether they go on to engage in actual pedophilia or not depends on opportunity and access. Many of them start off using the porno sites to just masterbate. But the longer they are on them the more they find out how to network with other pedophiles, where to go on vacation. when they meet other pedophiles on chat lines to exchange pictures and information, it invariably turns into sharing tips on how to prey on children. You are naive to think its only used for masterbation. You are naive to think you can film children forced to have sex and that doesn't promote pedophilia. First of all it is the act of pedophilia. A child was victimized to film it. Secondly of course it promotes it. It makes the behaviour open and accessible. Its children Argus not consenting adults. No union wages. Just adults buying and selling children and forcing sex on them. Pedophiles Argus in my opinion have no right to civil liberties and freedom of speech when it comes to any violent or sexual or non consensual activity with children. In regards to adults, I leave it to others to define when the line has been crossed and now a crime is happening. I actually think the federal government's behaviour in violating the freedom of expression rights of the gay community by singling out their porn was unconstitutional. But that was not child porn. Gay people were not asking the right to distribute child porn. They were asking for the right to circulate porn between consenting adults. I am not in the business of telling anyone what their sex standards should be. But I make no apology for saying, engage in violence of any kind, society should have a say. Engage in crime to promote your ideas, society should have a say and when it comes to children, keep your hands off. As for violence against women, there are plenty of women's advocates who can do a far better job than I explaining why their battle is not against all porn, just violent porn that degrades. As for those with strong religious views on sexuality, I may not agree with them, but they also have a right in our society to their views have a right to speak out. We all do.

No offence Lenny (can I call you that given your forum name?) but Breszhnev aint exactly a name that oh shall we say brings back memories of a warm, friendly, cuddly peace loving kind of guy. I do remember someone with that name who had a very big fat head and very large eye-brows and who relished invading nations not to mention running a brutal police state. Why not pick a real peaceful name like oh I don't know, say...Stalin... Now look how do I explain this, trying to assure us Vlad is not Vlad the Impaler but Vlad the next coming of Ghandi, let's just say, no it won't work. Don't forget we are a society that worships Paris Hilton precisely because we understand what it means to suck and blow at the same time. Give us some credit here in the West for at least that. Regards, Nikita Kruschev, no wait, Leon Trotsky, no wait, Vlad I. Lenin, no wait, Yuri Andropov.

Isn't it ironic in the racist apartheid state of Israel, Muslims have complete autonomy when it comes to family and religious law and have their own courts and sharia law system. In fact in Israel precisely because it is democractic and allows such autonomy it has created a social phenomena that is a precursor of what will probably happen in Canada and Britain or any other nation that does the same. In Israel within the Muslim societies where Sharia Law is enforced there are epidemic amounts of violence against women that are forgiven. It appears a similiar phenomena occurs when fundamental Jews go before Rabbinical courts so its a problem particular to both. Of course women in Israel whether Muslim or Orthodox Jew have the right to opt out of these courts and go to a regular court that is non denominational to settle their marital and domestic disputes and criminal law as to murder and assault and battery is supposed to supercede any religious laws but what we see are the criminal and non denominational famly courts and politicians and therefore police reluctant to interfere with Sharia and Rabbinical courts or their societies when domestic violence arises. Me personally I do not like the idea of religious courts. I believe the law should have no religious affiliations and treat everyone the same regardless of their religious beliefs. In Israel I would be typical of probably 70% of Israelis. But believers in Rabbinical and Sharia court systems together provide sufficient power in the knesset through elected members of the legislature to assure they will always exist. That said in Canada, if someone wants to try settle a dispute by Sharia or Rabbinical doctrine or by any other such religious doctrine, those settlements still have to conform with existing family and criminal laws but like in Israel from a purely practical point of view, if a woman and child are coerced into going to these sort of seperate arbitration or mediation proceedings will anyone know? Do you really think a completely dominated and controlled woman can exercise her free rights to opt out? Me personally I think fundamentalist religious who want the autonomy to settle disputes using their fundamentalist precepts are anti-gay, anti-women, look the other way on abuse caused by men, are bias in favour of men, and are antiquated clinging to what I consider barbaric concepts. But that is my personal opinion. Call me a fool but I tend to see women as equals and I see no need for them to cover their bodies or walk behind me. I also think those women that wear that silly hair bun style and Little House on the Prarie dresses and think its o.k. for men to screw 13 year olds and have multiple wives really do need to spend a weekend with HArvey Firestein, Miss Jay, Whoopi Goldberg and Charlie Sheen. Yet I know many women who claim that is what they want. This is one area I would say to women, you got an issue particular to women on your hands and while I am sympathetic to the feminist perspective on it. I think this issue requires strong active participation of women and for that matter children's right groups. Me personally the idea of a smelly man with a beard telling me what to do is a problem. I think all Judges should be like Judge Judy.

Lol they let you out? How are you? I am not Israeli so my opinion means butkus. Its what Israelis will vote for that is significant. If I was Israeli I probably would have voted for her yes. But get it right, I am 52. I no longer have posters in my bed room. I have been married 20 years. The wife calls the shots on any decor and I am jiggy with that. Besides its Lindsay Lohan I dream of. Everyone knows that. I settled on Lindsay because Buffy and BC Chick are just not available and AmericanWoman has too much class to be associated with moi. And by the way smart ass do not I repeat do not send me any Sara Palin photoes. I know you love her.

Right your comments have such credibility and such a serious tone to them. You just came on and posted a subjective negative opinion based on your bias. How does that contribute to any debate or discussion and why would it be taken seriously. You could have easily written 3 words, Israel is poo. It would have had as much substance. As for what Oleg said, he knws as a Jewish man I laughed. Unlike you at least he tries to lighten up sometimes. Oh by the way Oleg who you calling a wuss. Lol.

No argus there are studies that do link the two. I provide a quote from the following from this web site; http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newslette...3_2004.htmatbut before I do that refer you to the following web-sites as well; http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...2000/rr00_5.pdf http://www.cybercollege.com/port/sexrsh.htm http://www.moralityinmedia.org/pornsEffect...es-Link-RWP.pdf http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...hy_rape_jp.html http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...rphy_ovrvw.html http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yo...Pornography.pdf " The Statistics Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.9 In a 2000 study issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 76% of offenders convicted of internet-related crimes against children admitted to contact sex crimes with children previously undetected by law enforcement and had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each.10 Furthermore, reports by state-based Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) task forces confirm the positive correlation between the possession of child pornography and the commission of crimes against children, through its law enforcement and fieldwork.11 For instance, the Pennsylvania-based ICAC task force reported that 51% of individuals arrested for pornography-related offenses were also determined to be actively molesting children or to have molested in the past. In Dallas, the ICAC task force found that 32% of offenders arrested over the course of one year for child pornography offenses were also molesting children or had molested in the past.12 In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation. " Argus not all people who posess child pornography have acted out their fantasies. But I can tell you every pedophile I have encountered uses child pornography as a way to network with other pedophiles to gain access to children. Child pronography also finances international syndicates who trade women and children as sex slaves and incite pedophiles who might not otherwise have opportunity and access to go on to committing sex crimes precisely because the child porno network tells them where to go and makes them feel since others are doing it as well, its socially acceptable. So sorry I think you are just dead wrong. As for whether this woman has acted out anything and engaged in sexual exploitation of children I do not know the full story. She could be manipulated and the front for someone else and is pleasing someone else by maintaining this site for them. She may in fact be a pedophile herself. It is possible that women can be pedophiles. It is not as usual and the reason why this is, although it is by no means a definitive explanation is probably because testosterone is linked to pedophilia and testosterone of course is more prevalent in men. It could also be certain types of pedophilia are as a result of bio-chemical imbalances more likely to happen in the male then female gender because of certain chromosones or the way the frontal lobe structure differs. They just do not know for sure and are looking in to it. Pedophiles who strictly become that way because of lifestyle choice and have no bio-chemical predisposition to it are very unusual. Most pedophiles have a tell tale craving in their sex drive that can not be controlled suggesting the obessive compulsive and addictive traits associated with it are bio-chemical. If it was strictly learned behaviour, behaviour modification would prove beneficial but what we do know is behaviour modification doesn't seem to work. In fact the only thing that seems to work is a common sense one; removing the opportunity and access to children. Every pedophile I encountered in the court system used child pornography as a way to try alleviate their tension through masterbation which I suppose could be argued will prevent some of them from acting out their impulses, but no common sense tells us that even a pedophile who can masterbate and alleviate their sex drive, will not turn down the opportunity if it comes about and he has unrestricted access. We also know pedophiles feel vindicated and empowered by the internet and feel it legitimizes their right to have sex with children and assist others do the same.

No I do not think so. I think you over-analyze. The fact that Bush went to China or other world leaders did, does not automatically mean he had to. I think your entire analysis is predicated on something typically Canadian, because the Americans did it, we should have done it. Bush went to the Olympics because he and his father have always been strong supporters of US Olympic sports teams. They no doubt combined it with some chitter chatter but no nothing substantial resulted from the US going to the olympics and the fact that Harper is not interested in cheap photo ops should be applauded. Anyone who thinks showing up for a photo op is what it is about is being a but naive in my opinion. Now you claimed Harper's criticism of China should apply to all the other countries you mentioned. That is interesting. Using that reasoning, since all countries of the world are guilty of interference as you suggest, this to you justifies not criticizing a country when it engages in human rights offences? O.k. lets just stop criticizing everyone and welcome trade with everyone and get on with it. Yes that is one approach. Remarkably whorish I would say. I call it the Paris Hilton doctrine. Sleep with anything that moves. For me, I think his attempt to define a foreign policy based on something other then just profit is commendable. Funny when he does something highly idealistic like that, he's criticized by Chretien and leftists for being a Bush clone and yet they completely pretend they are unaware if he was a Bush clone he would have gone just like Bush. Which one is it? If he is a Bush clone why are they criticizing him for not doing what Bush did? Gee can we say inconsistent? Give me a bib for my vomit please. when Jean Chretien lecturers Harper he should have gone to China and sucked up this is the Chretien who is now a lobbyist for Chinese business interests. Oh how credible. The same Chretien who blasts Harper for being a Bush clone is the one being the Bush clone not to mention a monumental hippocrate and he should wipe the mess from his mouth from his career practice before he lectures others on being appropriate. Someone tell Jean until that cold sore on his mouth heals, he looks ridiculous lecturing on divine essence. I criticize many of the things Harper does with his economic policies and I can't stand his approach to the environment and I wish someone put some cement shoes on Jim Flaherty and dumped him in Lake Ontario, but I will not criticize him for being idealistic and trying to define a foreign policy approach that does not suck and blow about human rights and engage in hippocracy and selectivity as to who will be criticized and when. He maintains the same approach for all countries which is more then I can say about the two faced suck abnd blowers in the Liberal, NDP and Green parties who suck and blow on foreign policy and take sides and support human rights offending nations when its convenient to them. I say we should applaud non conformity and idealism when we see it regardless of whether its from the left or right - its a rare thing in politics when someone shows it and I am not someone who just will bad mouth it because the person who shows it is a Tory and everyone knows I am no Tory. Yech I defended the Tories again but fair is fair. Harper has shown a consistent approach based on consistent, non selective equal application of a principal of fairness. If anyone thinks that will harm Canada because we are not sucking and blowing on China hard enough all I can say is go brush your teeth. Now excuse me I have to wash my mouth out before I start talking about family values and put on a sweater vest. I must say this for Harper. I have always felt he is nothing more then an up-dated Social Creditist. But unlike the Social Creditists, he doesn't support facist regimeslike the Social Creditists did and some of you want to with China which is nothing more then a totalitarian regime using the government as an organ to impose one set of views at the expense of all others. Tell me will these same anti-Harper, leave China alone apologists lecture us its o.k. to prop Sudan's government and enable it to thrive and continue its genocide? Oh how progressive. Oh Jack, does the NDP want to support Tibet or more trade with China. How does Olivia feel? Better go ask her. Last time I looked she said flattering things about the Chinese government. As for the Liberals, Mr. Ignatieff's foreign policy views are no different then Harper's. I am sure though Bob Rae would not agree. They can fight it out in a few weeks after Dion is exiled to Wawa, Ontario.

Its a distinctly Canadian characteristic to worry what other nations think of us. Its as Canadian as Tim Horton's and Toronto Maple Leaf fans each year flocking to the Air Canada Centre like the zombies from Night of the Living Dead. That is who George Romero based those zombies on.

I defer to thine eloquence and affection for our beaver.

Mais nons. No he won't. He can't. That is an admission he's lost the election. This is a stubborn man who will go out as he did coming in, obstinate, stiff, rigid, not the kind of person who will change and adapt as he goes along - someone who comes across as an academic but in fact is dogmatic. Trudeau was just as much of an academic, so was Lester Pearson, but neither felt so bound by their beliefs they could not bend and adapt to political reality. The same thing that ails Dion is what ails Ignatieff. They just can not lower themselves to sucking and blowing to get votes. They prefer to hear themselves talk and lecture then practicing blow jobs on Joe Public. Now Mr. Haper, even though we all know he is a stubborn, elitist who does not give a damn what anyone thinks and has contempt for everyone, even he gets on his knees and toots the message during election time. Tells people what they want to hear and saves reality for the back rooms. Strategic voting? Do you really think the NDP will suddenly vote Liberal and prevent a majority? Hah. In the ridings they do it will make zero difference. The election was a Tory majority the moment Dion refused to listen to his handlers and insisted on going ahead with the Green Shit as his platform. Harper won it precisely because he chooses to lie and tell people what they want to hear. Its a guaranteed formula to win. Harper's message appeals to people who do not want to feel responsible for the consequences of their lfiestyle choices and change their personal lifestyles to adapt to what is coming. Dion like some petulant Professor everyone laughs at tries to act like Noah warning of the flood only he can't explain it in easy to understand terms because everytime he tries to say the word flood it comes out dud. As for Gilles Duceppes and the Block, its pretty hard to run a all we care about is Quebec platform when Harper has played the classic federal Quebec Social Credit Party song which appeals to rural Quebecers. Another Social Credit government on the way. The only difference, Harper ditched the checkered jackets and pinky ring fingers.

I love it. You get caught red-handed misquoting someone and all you can do is act the bafoon and does it surprise be Blackdog and BC chirp right in. Why of course not. Wink wink nudge nudge, its Israel right. Israel bad. Poo poo ka ka. Yuck yuck. Haven't posted an Israel poo post in awhile . Better send one out. Yuck yuck. Here can we move on from the poo poo and ka ka. The context of the actual comments of course flew over the head of the person who started this thread who already has decided anything that comes out of the mouth of an Israeli is brown and poo poo. The actual discussion has to deal with the concept of inciting hatred. Oh yes in Canada we do have criminal laws that say, if you say something that encourages another to commit a crime, that is a crime. I know it is a difficult concept for some of us convinced of what poo is to understand that. How about we stop playing with the poo then and put it down, wash our hands, and try grasp the actual concept that was discussed. Precrime. What the hell does that mean. No not everything you say out loud is a crime. Yes it can be very tricky crossing the line between freedom of speech and going the next step and using speech to encourage a crime. It is a very fine line indeed and it depends on context and circumstance and proximity to those being targetted and those being incited and it depends on whether someone believes there is a reasonable likelihood those words will cause others to act. All difficult and complex things to prove and be accurate about. Clearly in this case no one is going to arrest the Iranian President for his comments. If anything his comments will be applauded and probably get him some sort of award at the United Nations. No he can not be arrested and tried for an international war crime simply because of what he said. Everyone knows that. The actual comment that was misquoted was raised not in a literal sense but as deliberate rhetoric. It was never meant to be taken literally and the audience did not take it literally. But obviously our Israel Committee did. Good for all of you. Keep the world safe from Israelis. You know how crazy and unjust they are. Keep up your mission.

O.k. I concede your point. I would go further and add to that list " Silly Love Songs".

Lol. Let's just call him a dumbass. Let's be fair both countries have their share. Here is the real point. It doesn't matter what Americans think. When one defines their identity whether it be on a personal or on a collective level it should be based on positive feelings generated by the individual or group NOT other groups. I mean think about it. If I do not respect myself, does it matter what others think of me? Maybe it is because I am older now I have learned to accept myself and not worry what others think. Could be. But I think it is a sign of national imaturity when a country frets about what other countries think about it. If someone does not respect Canada good for them. I only care if they go the next step and take that lack of respect and think they can come to Canada and spread it or endanger Canadians. Until it becomes a danger to my peace and security, its free speech. Who cares. Someone hates beavers, fine. I can live with that. I am Canadian. What we say to that is, gosh darn, that's too bad. Here why not come ahead of me in line, and you know what, now that I know you have no respect for me, please, come live here anyways. That's cool. In this country we all have many cultural views as to what is respectful. Just try not to burn anyone or kill anyone. We might have to give you a 6 month jail sentence. Oopsy. I got cynical. Sorry.

Lol. No its true. Do you realize how much influence I have you fool!!!!!? Do you have any idea how much power there is in feeding a politician a Montreal bagel with lox and cream cheese!!!!!!? I have them all under my control. They will do my bidding. Today Picton and Rimouski, tomorrow the world.

Prove it. Provide the objective and corroborated evdience for the above comment. Your comment is nothing more then a repeat of one of the most ancient anti-semitic stereotypes of Jews. Do tell us what these magic powers of Jews is. And do me a favour do something better then we own the banks, control the media, and scurry about Ottawa brainwashing people. I want something other then your subjective preconceptions. Can you do that? Here's a hint, try add up the number of Jewish voters in Canada. Then do us all a favour and provide the networks that allegedly influence the governments, and prove how they actually influence the government. Right. We have them all under our mind control and bagels and lox.

In fairness you should cringe. The numbers do not add up. But then neither do Harper's. In fact add them up. Harper is spending just as much and his numbers do not add up either. The fact is politicians during elections make idiot promises. Its not particular to Dion. Also your assumption that your grocery and heating bills will go up because of a carbon tax is just not right. That is one of many misunderstandings as to how the carbon tax would work. In fact your grocery and heating bills will go up under the Harper scheme absolutely no different then what you think the carbon tax will do. Yes you should take your calculator and sit down in a quiet room and see whether there is in fact any difference between what Harper is now doing and what you think Dion will do. I do not blame you for thinking Dion is an idiot spewing numbers about. He is. But use that same skepticism when examining what Harper says, and no I will not even discuss that idiot Layton. By the way before you cringe at a green mortgage find out what it is and take a look at your current mortgage and what is happening with mortgage lending rates. That is directly linked to the increasing prices of gas. If we do not find a way to end our dependency on gas, you will go broke. I think you know that. You can keep putting that off and refuse to deal with it and buy into what Harper tells you because after all it sounds better, and you are not expected to do anything, or you can start to look at your lfiestyle and say, regardless of who gets elected in the next 20 years the world as we know it will drastically change. Our consumer lifestyle can not be sustained and things will change, forced upon us by crisis because that is what we humans do, wait until a crisis forces us to change before we change.

Actually most economists do as well and therein lies the irony. Harper has convinced Canada he is touting conservative economic principles. He is not. He is selling Social Credit economic theories not conservative ones. In fact the green shift type model is supported by many conservative economists. Its creators the Green Party are in fact right wing economists not left wing ones. Harper's approach is actually a stale left over socialist one. He and jack Layton have so much in common these days. I again think your comment that carbon taxes spent on social programs is dead on and what the economists have warned. For it to work you the carbon tax has to be put back into the economic sector not the social sector. My problem with Dion is he has failed miserably toe xplain the carbon tax scheme and not just in English but in French. He has no clue how to speak in short sentences. He just can not do it. The sad thing is the carnon tax scheme is actually more conservative and far safer and easier to control then the one Harper touts which actually fuels increases in gas prices. The bottom line is Harper will get his majority, we will get a state wide Mike Harris regime and five years from now Canada will do what it did in Ontario after they had their fill with Harris, elect anyone but the Tories. By then Harper and his cronies will be ready to move on to board of director and corporate positions and continue their elite sheltered lives while we shmucks will probably see our houses foreclosed on, huge unemployment rates and a whopper of a recession everyone will refuse to call a recession. But on the other hand, there will be people who speculate on other peoples' misery and will become the next geenration's elite by taking advantage of the economuic collapse to buy things cheap and then sit on them and wait for the next cycle to revive the economy, provided the planet hasn't completely been destroyed by hurricanes by then and we haven't had any nuclear terrorist attack that has wiped out a major trading market. Let them eat cake damn it.

Lol, its obviously not yours either Argus. The current government like the ones before it have placed a large tax on our consumption of gasoline which was initially put in place by the Liberals as a temporary measure until the budget deficit was eliminated. It has stayed in place ever since. Your good buddy Stevie Harper claimed he would lift it but hasn't arguing by lowering the GST he did the same thing which is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard next to the above. Basic economics should have indicated to you that if you give a large corporation a tax break (which I actually do not think the federal government has done ) and that large corporation is dependent on world market prices there would be zero guarantee any of that money could go into hiring more Canadians. More to the point would you have anybody believe trying to get people hired by oil companies is a good way to spend our tax money? Oh I get it you believe we should give subsidies to oil companies because that helps our economy. Really. Do show us the statistics that indicates how Petro Canada, Esso, Shell, and Sunoco who currently have a monopoly in Canada and prevent competitive pricing, have hired the amount of Canadians you would suggest the tax breaks have led them to hire and how this has benefitted Canada. Do tell us economic expert. Oh wait we can put Canadians to work running gas stations. Brilliant. The oil sands project is the only major economic project right now on the go with Hibernia coming up. Just how many people do you think that employs in the big picture. Get real. The price of gasoline and oil is dictated by speculators on world markets the same speculators who you would of course not regulate and have led to the current fiasco in the U.S. and where we have an alleged free market economy dedicated to avoiding regulation now asking taxpayers to pay billions of their taxes to subsidize bail outs of the same companies whose speculation has led to our current fiasco with mortgage financing. Do me a favour do look at the link between mortgage failure and the price of gas. As the price of gas rised, so did the number of mortgages that defaulted. Doesn't take an economic genius to know one triggered the other. The point is consumers ran up huge debts encouraged to live over their financial means by banks, mortgage lenders and businesses encouraging them to buy now and pay later to feel our economy. Only that same economy has been compromised by sky-rocketing oil and gas prices which ripple effect into the pricing structure of all goods being sold making it impossible for anyone to keep up with the added debts coming from the increase of fuel prices. Clear and simple, tax breaks to oil companies to get Canadians jobs is bullshit. It has never led to the amount of jobs that could offset the negative offset of world market fluctuations and the decision of the oil corporations to lie and fix prices. Your buddy Steve Harper is no different then the Liberals. He will not stop the price fixing and challenge the oil companies because he does not want to give up the federal tax cash cow that comes with the escalating prices. The only thing wrong with Stephane Dion is he can not speak English and so can not explain what he is talking about. The scheme he is touting is actually a free enterprise scheme and most economists agree with it. Its not even radical. The problem is people like you and the average Canadian have about a ten second attention span when it comes to economics and so spew out these ridiculously simplistic theories you believe in such as oil companies when given tax breaks hire people which is good for Canada. Yah they care about us. Bottom line is, Harper will get his majority because we as human beings are lazy. When faced with discomfort we don't want to see the big picture. When a politician appeals to us to be short sighted and take the lazy way out we buy it. Steve Harper tells people what they want to here-I won't tax you but he has and will continue to tax us no differently then anyone else, and ultimately his tax break on diesel fuel which is yet another cheap short term gimmick to get votes will mean nothing as the price of diesel fuel will rise and offset any tax break. Stephane Dion's mistake is not his idea, just that in politics people don't want to hear long term ideas, they want what can you do for me today ideas. Our politicians base their platforms on whatever it takes to get elected. Dion is a stubborn unrealistic jack-ass who thinks people will take the time to think and go to the web-site and exercise long term thinking. He believes Canadians have an attention span of more then 10 seconds on economic issues. For an alleged academic in the ivory tower, he actually believes too much in the ability of the average Canadian to understand concepts he understands. It would not dawn on him no one has a clue what he is selling for two reasons-firstly he can't speak English, secondly it is clear he has no idea how to explain the green tax because he ignored his handlers who told him, don't make it an election platform, hold off on it, and only if you are elected, then slowly raise it and allow many months of discussion. Stephane Dion has been deliberately left to hang in the wind and fail. He was a compromise candidate put in by Chretien's wing to stop Ignatieff who was Martin's choice. The Ignatieff wing has sat back and allowed Dion to hang himself so they can quickly get rid of him after this farse of an election ends. We will get your majority Tory government, the same failed economic policies that have ruined the U.S. and give you great confidence and continue to watch China and the Asian markets use predatory pricing to turn us into a bunch of debt ridden idiots with inferior products. Esso cares. Petro Canada cares. They want to help us by hiring Canadians. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That's almost as good as telling me that isn't a herpes sore on Paris Hilton's mouth just a pimple.

I very much agree with you that whenever there is a discussion of what being Canadian is we define it as not what we are but what we are NOT and so precisely as you said, the we are not American device is part of that defining who we are by what we are not. In fact I would go so far as to say a distinct Canadian characteristic is defining who we are by what we do not think we are precisely because our identity has been created by being all things to all people and so now we have no idea what that means. In the U.S. you have the melting pot identity-out of many comes one identity. In our country we emphasis being a bit of everything to avoid being rude and insensitive. Our country was founded by people who were polite and wished to avoid confrontation and rebellion. That is precisely why we created a legal framework for out nation that would permit an on-going neevr ending process of defining identity by balancing 4 components, the aboriginal, British and Frernch components and the OTHER component, every one else who does not fit in the other 3. Canada continues to define its identity as all inclusive and so when people try discuss it the only way they can explain it is to try state what they do not think is included since trying to explain all the things it includes is cumbersome. Now Bush-Chaney here is my definition of a Canadian; 1-someone who loves to wait in line unless they have recently come from Asia, Latin America or Eastern Europe 2-someone who stops at a red light and does not cross the street until it turns green 3-someone who does not wear a winter coat until February 4-someone who knows what a snow tire is for and when to use them 5-someone who thinks Rita McNeil is adorable 6-someone willing to pay a fortune to pay to see a hockey game with some loser team from a Southern American city 7-someone who prefers 3 down football 8-someone who knows what a wolverine is 9-someone who does not thing a beaver is a part of the female anatomy 10-same comment as 9 but in regards to the term beaver-tail 11-someone who thinks Stephen Harper has a nice hair cut 12-someone who still buys a Ford or GM product 13-someone who thinks they are superior to Americans 14-someone who thinks the rest of the world knows they are Canadian and not American 15-someone who can't speak English without some kind of accent.