Rue

Excellent points.

I was in Kitchener and I saw Amish people. They looked dangerous. One of them was wearing a bonnet and smiled. I think she was going to kill me. My wife said my zipper was undone.

Argus if there was one thing I know from personal experience, is that anti-semites like anyone else aren't restricted to foreigners. Lol. But you know Argus if you are asking me would I get nervous sitting next to a guy on an airplane wearing a Hamas t-shirt, yes. But my point is even if he was a white guy wearing that shirt, he would make me nervous. I believe Einstein referred to it as the theory of relativity.

Geez I thought it meant he was a nudist.

Nothing he can't resolve with some some prune juice Mar. I swear by it.

Relax. This is Canada. As long as you don't hurt anyone and are willing to say excuse me after you burp and wait in any line you see even if there are other counters available, you will be fine.

You will notice Remiel that the anti-Cuban rhetoric is all about demonizing Castro as Satan and anyone who lives in Cuba as living in hell. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with myths and faith beliefs that require one to suspend factual documentation and instead rely on subjective worship and chanting of certain doctrrine. Ironically the very same things Castro and Cuba are condemned for are the exact same things these Castro Satan Cuba hell disciples engage in. The reality is Castro is human not Satan and Cuba is not hell. Cuba was a corupt mafia playground and would have remained so, had Castro not come about. It would have become another Dominican Republic, a corupt regime run my a military dictator staying in power by taking kick backs from organized crime syndicates and US companies. The US tried with the IMF and with every economic force possible to starve its people and destroy their economy as they have every other West Indian nation that dared try to compete with America in the perishable commodity market, but they haven't gone down and that is what pisses off Americans. Castro wasn't supposed to last this long. Its impossible. Humans want Big Macs and Coca Cola. It can't be. The reality is Cuba is a state controled society. Yes it has a political police force and it regulates and swiftly deals with those who question the government over certain issues. The optics of how the masses are controlled can be spun as evil communism precisely because its centralized-it comes from one source instead of many like in the other countries. Here is the irony. The Spanish, Italians, French, Germans and Canadians have had no problem setting up lucrative hotel chains in Cuba. All Cuba has done is ask for a percentage of the profit, and assure its people are hired. The only difference between Cuba and other West Indian nations is its government makes sure a percentage of the profit must stay in the nation and that its people are employed. Ooh how tyranical. Instead of hundreds of syndicates engaged in complicated kick-back schemes to all kinds of politicians-the kick back so to speak is open and up front and goes smack dab to the government. Tyrany? No just consolidated, centralized control of what would otherwise be a complex web of bribery that would benefit everyone but the people. All one has to do is travel to the Dominican Republic, Yucatan Peninsula, and compare. In Mexico its all about time shares and corupt real estate swindles and the people of the area seeing nothing from all the tourist activity. So who suffers more and why? All the evils of Cuba are caused by what? In the Castro As Satan religion its all Castro's doing. In reality the government responsible for not allowing fresh milk or medicine or food or toilet products to Cuba is not Castro it is the US economic boycott. If Cubans have suffered hardship it has come directly from US foreign policy trying to punish its people collectively hoping they would turn on Castro. All it did was make them more loyal to Castro. You can spin the myth all you want that the people of Cuba are captive, but they genuinely love Castro. Go on, try find Castro's skeletons. Try show he has lived a hideously opulent life at the expense of his people. Good luck. Castro genuinely is worried his country is vulnerable to coruption. He does not hate Americans or democracy. What he is worried about is organized coruption turning his people into prostitutes, drug addicts and begging on the streets while foreigners run his country and get wealthy. Its a transparent ideology and concern. Of course it alienates those Cubans who wanted to put themselves before the state and become individually wealthy. Now you want to spin the myth that collectivism is evil and rugged individual capitalism is the only way to free the people be my guest but I would suggest the truth is somewhere in between and that capitalism does not necessarily liberate or benefit anyone but a few corupt politicians and of course hotel chains. I would suggest with collectivism comes the loss of certain benefits we in Canada and the US think make us superior but to those people may not be as important as we think they are. Much of the anti-cuban myth comes from assuming they think like us and of course want to be like us. It would never dawn on anti-Cubans that Cuban people may not want to be like us at all and that we project our assumptions as to what is superior on them no different then the Christian missionaries of many centuries ago. Are we superior because we owe more money and live more stressed out and polluted lives? The truth is if the majority of Cubans hated their state of affairs, they would have revolted long ago. The political police monitor prostitution, crime, domestic violence, but these police can't control the people without the people allowing it. Cubans have short wave radio. They have inter-net. They are in contact with foreigners every day and they can easily get around surveillance and know when it is safe to talk or communicate through non words. I have travelled in Cuba in non tourist areas. I listen to what is not said, not what is said. To find out about the people, its not words you listen to. Political police can only control words and physical movement . They restrict the movement of their own people to keep them away from tourists not because of politics but because of the fear of cild molestation, prostitution, drug addiction. If political police were interested in preventing me from travelling to the interior they could have easily done it. What I look for is not words. It is teeth decay, eye infections, cholera, typhoid, malnutrition, violence, prostitution, drug addiction. I look for dirty water, garbage, the mentally ill. What I did find are hospitals and many doctors. The hospitals are clean. No they have no medicine. What I found were schools, where every child is in school. What I found were simple homes but no rats, no mice, no roaches and no garbage on the streets. What I found everywhere was music, spontaneous music. I did not find sex being controlled through prostitution. Sorry Cuba is not hell. Its not utopia either. It is a country with few luxuries. But its not the USA. It is a society of blended race and cultures-it is a society that is genuinely colour blind and where everyone goes to school and has the same access to hospitals. Its economic limitations have come from deliberate US embargoes desigend to punish innocent people and make them angry hoping they would turn on their government. All its done is unify its people. I am no Castro groupy. I hate his love affair with Chavez, Sadam Hussein, North Korea and orthodox Marxist economic planning theories. But this is no fool. This is a man who easily brought in capitalism and capitalist concepts to revitalize certain industries-all he did was assure his people benefitted. To understand what Castro is all about, you have to travel to Cuban Miami to find that out. If you think the average Cuban sits and dreams about living in Miami and being American you are mistaken. Cuba has many problems. But to pretend the US is superior to it and its people are captive and dream about living in America is a crock. Last time I looked there was more to Miami then Horatio Cane driving around in a Hummer and asking Frank what do we have here after how many shows of encountering dead bodies? American culture tends to get stuck on certain concepts and can't move on.

Lol. Of course not. Touche. (that's French for you got that right)

Lol Bushdude. You have now made it to the big leagues. Keng does not like you. Welcome. Listen on a more serious note. I do think McCain can beat Clinton but would have a harder time with Obama. Let me try argue why keeping in mind you know its just personal opinion. I think McCain will appeal to many democrats who do not like Clinton because of her image of being thin skinned and too closely tied to Clinton politics and the past real estate scandal which makes them nervous. I think the democrats that liked Billy Boy get put off by her severity and lack of compassion. You know we can talk all we want about McCain being a soldier, an old white guy Bush clone, etc., but he is a genuine war hero and his bad temper is his passion and that passion often is expressed genuinely when he talks about the poor or immigrants or blue collar people. You can't fake what he is. He does acknowledge the parts of America Romney and Huckabee will never. What McCain may not be liekd for in his conservative wing will win him democrat votes if Clinton goes up against him. Now if its Obama what happens is optics. No offence to McCain but it comes down not to a race issue at all, but an old man v.s. young man battle and I think America has this love affair with youth and sees being younger as fresher, more vital, and I really think he would have a hard time countering Obama's charisma. Clinton has none. She is another Maggie Thatcher. Maggie Thatcher won by being a bull dog not by capturing people's imaginations. It was all about power politics and intimidation. McCain can counter the Clinton intimidation with his natural dignity and soldier manners. But up against a younger Obama with the little boy head and skinny girl's body, its a different set of optics. He will always look like a bully next to Obama. He will never look like the under-dog and America loves underdogs. With Clinton, he could easily make himself look more compassionate then her. With Obama I do not think so. Now you want to cause a huge explosion if you are McCain, why not convince Colin Powell to run as V.P. That would neutralize Obama asap. I doubt Powell would ever agree to it though. If I am McCain I am stuck trying to get a seasoned Republican Senator who can bring back the conservatives. Obama is going to go for a seasoned veteran conservative demo Senator as his Veep. If its Clinton she will simply pick a Clinton loyalist further isolating herself. I think Obama is gonna take Hawaii and Wisconsin but Clinton will take Texas and Ohio is gonna be close. I do not think Hilary is out of it at all. If she takes Ohio and Texas she wins. If Hilary can't get the majority of the elected delegates I still think she will try use superdelegates to muscle her way in. She will argue she didn't really lose the popular vote because of the states she won but weren't allowed to vote. She will not go quietly. I do think though that the superdelegates if push comes to shove will be heavily influenced by Al Gore, Kennedy and Kerry. I think before this is over Kennedy will have a lot of behind the scenes power to neutralize the Clinton machine. He still has a lot of superdelegate clout.

Not to worry I am here. Read my tips on a varied diet. As for those who want to just stick to white bread, don't worry about it. They can't walk too far.

Well we have nutritional choices. Vary your diet, otherwise if you stick with the same thing you'll get constipated and walk funny. Some people think its goose stepping, but its really impacted bowels from eating too much white bread which has no fibre. You have to eat brown rice and brown bread. I recommend prune juice every morning. Hey its brown too.

First off, when we look at such figures it is not helpful to get into pissing matches on who is worse Hitler or Stalin. Its like arguing what is worse stomach cancer or liver cancer, or aids or stomach cancer. The fact is Stalin was a socio-pathic serial killer. He didn't just oversee the mass murder/starvation of what some estimate is 20 million Ukrainian peasant farmers but he killed hundreds of thousands more maybe millions through his police state. This is a man who raped women then killed them when he was done. This is a man who would fly into rages and kill people with his own bare hands. Anyone who questioned him was killed. For anyone to try justify anything this man did is not idiotic its dangerous. Its the kind of revisionist crap that seeks to try justify moral depravity through a feigned exercise of rational analysis only the analysis never looks at what he did it denies what he did as in the above essay which I commend Bush for finding. Stalin a misunderstood hero? Right. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler unified his country. Mao Tse Tung brought socialism to the masses. The revisionism always seeks to ignore the mass murders they perpetuate. Its not just an affront to Ukrainians by the way. Ukrainians should know that the mass genocide of the Ukrainian peasants is a unique historic event that can never be forgotten nor should it be compared to any other. It has parallels to the Armenian genocide, the holocaust, the killing fields of Kampuchea/Cambodia and the mass murder of 20 or more million in Mao's revolution but its unique. Its not a pissing contest. The fact he fought Hitler does not negate what he was and what he did and in fact he wouldn't have even fought Hitler had the idiot not been stupid enough to invade Russia. The murders of innocent civilians as well as political foes and the terror regime he ran speaks for itself. That can not be debated. More to the point there was nothing socialist about Stalin. He was no more socialist then the Nazis who also used the name. He was a tyrant. A dictator. He was not interested in anything but brutal force run by a military apperatus that cow-towed to his bloody reign. It had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with social terrorism. With due respect I found this essay attempting to revise Stalin's profile like reading someone trying to argue yah but a pedophile or a serial killer may have also did good things in their life and they were not just all evil. The point is their good or relative good is irrelevant.

I wish you were wrong Cap. lol.

First off Angus I have nothing but respect for you and would never insult you. But my cryptic comment did seem like I could be so I apologize. Lol. Just ignore me on this one. All I meant was I aint buying it and I suspect he's an angry white kid playing.

Thanks Mel. Hah. Welcome to the world of the law where nothing makes sense and the sentences keep coming. Sort of like all my posts.

In my personal opinion, Rocco Gelati is simply a criminal defence lawyer who has made a career defending certain cases that he knows are going to be high profile because I suspect it gets him the publicity he wants and an inside advantage in certain ethnic communities to get client referrals. I suspect he panders to secure future clients. But then I am a cynic. But I say the same thing about Clayton Ruby, Tim Danson, and many other lawyers who love the limelight and I concede it may be unwarranted and just my cynicism.

Its a legitimate question and reeks of a publicity stunt something Fantino has made a career of and why many police officers do not like him or trust him. The issue is of huge importance and should be continually discussed openly but it should never have been done before any arrests precisely for the reasons you stated.

That is precisely the point.

With due respect you did not read all the posts so you have made an incorrect assumption as to what I said. I did not at any time suggest the fact that Higgly's take on Israel, particularly his first post was anti-semitic. You are dead wrong and so your lecture as to when to accuse someone of anti-semitism is inappropriate as it was never used in this series of debates as you suggested it was and if in fact you read my posts you would see early on I made a reference to Higgly now sticking to the debate and not personal references to Jews. What had in fact happened was that in a previous series of posts between myself and Higgly debating this topic he made a comment about New York being a state for Jews. He said it in a sarcastic way and I called it anti-semtiic and in the context it was used it was and no I do not put up with inferred Hymietown cracks. Do I think Higgly is a racist, etc. no. I think he has strong views and he go carried away and so do I. But I also think he deliberately made an effort in this round of posts to debate me on the issues and he knows I enjoyed it. We both debated them as strongly as we could and with due respect I made very specific effort to address the issues NOT the person nor did I use the anti-semite card and with due respect neither Higgly or Figleaf or anyone else came back and was able to provide documentation to indicate the information I presented was incorrect. Where Higgly and I strongly disagree is that I believe his take on the creation of Israel does not properly include and take into consideration certain issues but in fact selectively ignores them and in particular the movement of non Palestinian Muslims into the Palestinian region and the role Britain, France and Germany and the Arab League played as well as the significance of the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab league nations. I specifically provided documented evidence when Higgly questioned where the 900,000 Jewish refugee number came from. You did not read all the posts so you assume I called him an anti-semite because I disagree with his version of history. Had you read what I wrote you would see I am very specific and careful and if I call someone an anti-semite in any post, I make clear reference to why I do it and don't just throw it out. So with due respect you are out of line for your suggestion I said something I did not or raised an arguement in a context that I did not. Now if you must know the only time I raised anti-semitism in this series of debates was because of one comment and one comment only, the following comment; "Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender." I am a Canadian NOT an Israelite and I did not play the anti-semtiic card. He took what I said and assumed that was what I was doing. I did not. In the context of calling me an Israelite I called him out. That was the only specific reference I made to him. In regards to an issue HE not I assumed was calling him an anti-semite (flowing from the Israelite crack) is that I contend it is inconsistent to suggest Jews can not have a country and desire universal sufferage but Muslims and Christians can and no one questions that. That to me is necessarily anti-semitic against Jews as a people because it creates a discriminatory standard that only two sets of people can have and not the third. In this specific context, it is a very crucial and legitimate arguement in defense of Zionism. It is necessarily anti-semitic to suggest Jews can not have the exact same rights Christians and Muslims have enjoyed. As for using the word Israelite to describe me, no-not you as a Jew or anyone else calls me that. Since you have missed the entire point of what I was arguing let me put it in simple terms, here is a reference Higgly used; "The massacre of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish forces" Its an example of how anti-semitic references have become entrenched in our language to the extent people just assume they are o.k. Its probably unintentionmal. So tell me. Why are the Arabs " Palestinian" not Muslim, but the forces "Jewish" and not either "Israeli" or "Zionist". The word Jew has been misused so many times when referring to Israelis or Zionists that for all I know not even you notice. I do not like it when people refer to terrorists as Muslim terrorists just like I do not like the way the term Zionist is used to make references that assign deterimental value to all Jews. If I am going to refer to a terrorist who claims to be Muslim, I am careful and say Islamic fundamentalist not Muslim. That may seem ridiculous to you but to me I practice the same objective standards when describing everyone and people know it in my posts. It is not unreasonable to challenge someone when they fuse and mix "Zionist" with "Jew" or make alleged criticism about Israel foreign policies which smeers all Israelis as people or all Jews as people and I will continue to challenge that so when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue it is not used or exploited to incite hatred against either Muslims or Jews as people. More to the point, the fact that you felt it was germaine to say you were a Jew when you responded says a lot. Why was it relevant? Why was it any more relevant then if you were a Muslim or Christian? do you buy into this bullshit that people should immediately assume because you are a Jew anything you say a bout anti-semitism MUST be right? Why else did you raise the fact you are a Jew? I have never once asked anyone to simply believe me because I am a Jew. Using your logic they must believe your take on anti-semitism since you a Jew but even though I am a Jew they should not believe me-why-not because following your logic if there are 2 Jews and one denies anti-semitism and the other claims it, side with the one who denies. Why? Why does the denial immediately call for credibility? Why must your position be automatically assumed as the correct one? The answer to that is because since yours is not favourable to Jews, it must be true since a Jew saying something unfavourable about their collectivity must be telling the truth and someone saying something favourable or indefence of his collective identity must be wrong since its self-serving. Sorry I do not buy into this defeatist, self-hating, I must be telling the truth because I am denying fallacy. The fact is you came on this forum to lecture against using the race card but you raised it to give yourself immediate moral high ground and with due respect that is not credible. I do not wish any special privilege as a Jew and have never asked for it in any of my debates. Don't you think for one second because you are Jewish this automatically gives you credibility if you are anti-Israeli in position or if you choose to deny anti-semitism. Discuss the merits of the issue not your religious or cultural status. Stop turning yourself into a stereotype. Finally do not generalize and make assumptions that you know when and why people raise the race card. Each time it is raised the individual merits and scenario including cause and chain of events leading up to that accusation must be assessed to determine if its legitimate, illegitimate or anything else and your personal religious status has nothing to do with the merits of the case. You can't have it both ways. You have no right to lecture anyone on the race card when you raise it and you did.

I scored yes to 3,4,5,8,10 and the first part of 6 so 6.5/10. Your test seems to infer you must get all 10. I will assume your ambiguity is caused by you being a right wing idiot. No seriously, it may be possible one is not leftist but still scores like I did 6.5/10. I am an idiot but not leftist. Also you should have added 11. You think anyone who thinks they can define a leftist idiot with 10 points is an idiot. O.k. I only want to respond to 10. I support military troops because I believe they are not politicians and do not get to create political policies and must carry out what they are ordered and put their life on the line. If I have a problem with their mission I identify it for what it is a problem with the politicians and their policies that sent them there. It is no different then why I do not blame police officers for bad laws or lawyers for bad laws or doctors for getting cancer. What you have confused is moral relativity with loyalty and faith when questioning the actions of a soldier. If a soldier follows the Geneva convention I do not question them, just their politicians. If a soldier however acts outside the Geneva convention and commits an international crime. then I would question why he/she did it. I would look at the system that created the scenario, the cause and effect and causal chain of events and ask questions no different then what was done at Nuremberg. Many good soldiers disagreed with what went on at Abu G and it was their standing up to it that brought it down. Many US soldiers have stood up to private contracted employees sent in By Chaney to circumvent military law. US Marines are not taught to blindly obey. It is precisely because soldiers die rather then abandon their code of honour I respect them. I believe fighting terrorism has been used as a pretext for other political agenda and has exploited the good name and purpose of soldiers. This does not mean I do not believe we should be fighting terrorism or the US is wrong for fighting terrorism. What I am arguing is politicians are not allowing the American military to do its job properly because they have hijacked them and now use them as cheap security guards for bloated, corupt, government contract projects. No I do not blindly obey politicians because they can boss soldiers around. Someone has to speak up for soldiers who can not.

Excellent point. I was only talking about terrorists in the Gaza and West Bank who I have witnessed and lievd with. I should have clarified that. Sorry. Your point raises another excellent example of another profile of terrorist-a person of privilege. Carlos the Jackal, Osama Ben Laden, many others, came from very affluent environments where no one told them no. One psychological theory is their political extremism is nothing more then a murderous tantrum as they grow and realize they can't have it all their way. I concede these theories as to what makes a terrorist are only possible explanations. You and I know there is always an exception with any human and any predictions as to human behaviour when all is said and done are guesses. Touche.

No you have a legitimate right to be cynical. We have not properly defined what a terrorist is and until we do this will remain a circus. The reality is if this guy did what he did against the Cuban government he would be sleeping with the fishes.