Rue

I guess this means Paris Hilton is not Sri Lankan after all. Lindsay Lohan is most certainly French. How else can one explain her repeated surrenders.

You can't have it both ways arm-chair security expert. If Israel should not do what you say, then what SHOULD THEY DO? Answer the question you were asked by Bonham. Yet another security expert lecturing Israel on what they should not do but continually remaining silent on what they should do to protect themselves from terror. You would be the first Black Dog who would demand action if someone was threatening you. Sorry if I do not take your arm-chair security expertise seriously. Its easy to lecture from the safety of where you sit.

Atheists are more common on forums because they are younger and use technology more, as compared to older Christian Canadians(yourself excluded Scott). Yoh Nova Scotia I just think you called this believer in a divine scheme behind it all old and technologically retarded. O.k. so its true. Smart ass. Lol.

Nothing new to add? Reduced to the bump? Heh heh. I thought I would give you one last opportunity before I write you off as a liar. Yah but you are a Red Herring. (you can be a blue one if you want, I am not fixed on the colour)

Well now Higgly said something that could actually be accurate! Oh Lord of Abraham, thank you for penetrating his skull and imparting some knowledge! You work miracles! Next I insist you circumsize him and force him to eat a bagel without mayonaisse.

Well now Higgly is a tad paranoid. He feels those sinister Zionists dominate this forum and attack him. Hah. Higgly you want to come on this forum and make stupid racist inferences, take the heat.Oh but I know anyone who disagrees with you is an evil Zionist. They can't simply disagree with you because you might be in their opinion a collosal putz.

Once again prove to us all the extent of your intelligence. Thanks for sharing. I consdier myself fortunate when you come on this forum. I learn so much from you.

Are you saying Israel would talk to Hamas? What gave you that idea? The same idea that you think I want to talk to you.

Given your past posts I personally have found you to be quite extremist in regards to your expressed views as to the Middle East and in particular the Israel-Palestine conflict. Therefore while I completely agree with your take on these groups and their true agenda I question whether you are aware you have exhibited the same kind of extremism in past posts as to what you now criticize. I detest extremism and religious fundamentalism whether it supports one side or the other and what-ever religious form it comes in. It is true thr Christian Zionist movement is an sburdity in the sense that it only supports Israel's existence as a lead up stage to converting all Jews. That said we also have ultra-orthodox Jews numbering 500,000 in Israel who do not believe the state of Israel should exist until the Messiah returns first and openly have sided with anti-Israeli terrorist groups and allowed themselves to be used as pawns in Iran at anti-holocaust conferences. Fundamentalist religion makes strange for strange bed-fellows. I respect Christians' religious beliefs but me personally I do find the final chapter before Christ is said to come and save that some believe in literally just as questionably as I do Muslim extremists and Jewish extremists. I find all fundamental religions flawed and unrealistic and scary.

In response to Zachary Young's statements which I have placed in quotation marks; "I think it is manifestly clear that the political dialogue has been hijacked by far left intellectuals and special interests" The above statement is a ridiculous subjective negative generalization. if you are this quick to label and lump people into negative categories based on your subjective perceptions I think anyone would be a fool to waste a vote on you. If anything the above statement shows you are intolerant and close minded and are quick to judge people you think you disagree with precisely the qualities a politician should not have. "...but while this extremely vocal minority may dominate the media and the parliament I do not feel this is the best course for Canada, nor the one which the people truly desire to be lead down." So if I take out the reference to far left intellectuals and replace it with the reference, Jews, Gays, Catholics, Muslims, aboriginals, etc., would you say such a thing or would you realize if you referred to anyone other then far left intellectuals it could be construed as hate mongering? I am curious how you single out far left intellectuals but not far right ones. I also note while you are quick to label people as far left, you don't define what you define as far left. As well your reference to special interests is also left deliberately vague. It is a classic example of inciting hatred when one uses vague ambiguous references that make negative generalizations about a targetted group but the actual specific of the group is left open ended so you can attract as many people looking to blame others for their problems as is possible in your message. Oh but I know you only meant sociology students at York right? " social programs ...do nothing of the kind" I noticed you did not take the time to say certain social programs, you simply attacked everyone of them. Again that proves you are not only intellectually lazy but someone I would never vote for. If you do not have the ability to show people you can differentiate something good from something bad, and simply lump it all under one category, it shows precisely the simplistic, rigid, stereotypical thinking pattern that one would not want in a politician. Politicians we would hope can see nuances and the grey between the black and white. There job is about serving ALL their constituents not just the ones who think like them or who do NOT need social programs. You Sir with due respect with such a generalization show how intolerant you are. Would you like me to tell all the seniors of Canada you feel their getting CPP should be scrapped? How about War Veterans? Oh but I know, any one who needs social assistance, is a lazy good for nothing parasite and they can eat cake right-until they come in your neighbourhood and rob you, then you are the first screaming for more police and lights on your streets. Yah been there done that. "We should end the war on drugs..." Right this coming from someone who does not believe in social programs. Oh how I love a consistent politician. Wait don't tell me, we can end the war on drugs without social programs. "deregulate wherever safe and possible (the taxi industry is the most obvious example, it costs $100,000 to get a taxi license. Does this serve the interest of the taxi drivers? No. Does it serve the interests of the consumer? Absolutely not. It serves the interest of the companies that are established at the detriment of everyone else.' O.k. so there we go. we will deregulate the entire pharmaceutical industry and make the sale of all drugs of any kind to anyone legal and there will be no safety standards requireed. I will just trust the pharmaceutical interests to do what is right for me. Likewise with the fiood industry. No food manufacturer would ever manufacture food unsafe for me. "We should encourage competition, not prohibit it" Yes that is precisely why I would encourage anyone in your riding to assure other candidates run! "We should open all government monopolized industries to competition, and allow innovation and self interest to drive down prices, not the non existant good will of governance." Yes. As soon as you are elected you will sit down with all the members of the world-wide oil cartel for starters and say-stop.-but since you don't believe in government intervention, you won't intervene you will just "tell' them. Anyone who takes what you have presented seriously in my opinion needs to work in a soup kitchen, prison, women's shelter, hospital, legal aid or community centre or go to Afghanistan for ONE day. You state the simplistic things youd o precisely because you take all the things you quickly dismiss as unimportant for granted. All the things you dismiss and take for granted are precisely the things that enable you to make such self indulgent simplistic comments. More simply put-we all hate taxes and over-regulation. We also all hate going to the dentist or getting pap smears or prostate exams? Its easy to state the obvious but until you find some better way for me to check my prostate instead of just telling me what I know that having someone shove their hand in my brains, means very little. Here try something specific such as; If you vote for me I will make sure doctor's have to m anicure their finegrnails.

Right. Tell me again why you're not for open borders for Israel? Terrorism. More to the point How is that relevant? You see Scott that is precisely the point I was making. I would not explain the confict with Israelis and Palestinians as a race war precisely because that is what anti-semites love to do. I would explain the conflict as a land rights conflict that arose not just because of religion but because of many political factors. The religious component of the conflict would be one of many components I would use to describe it. No I would not stop simply at Jews and Muslims hate each other because they are different religions or races. To me that is a misrepresentation of the conflict precisely because it only looks at one of its manifested symptoms. If azything you just explained why I don't label things as racist or simply a clash of culture. I dig deeper. Human behaviour is like layers of the onion. If you only peel the surface layers that is where your analysis will stop but it does not mean your analysis is complete let alone accurate. I am arguing a basic analytical model of any social science. Since social sciences unlike the empirical sciences can not be tested under reconstructed tests to determine value, we have to taje even greater care not to jump to conclusions or assume our explanation for what we see is anything more then an estimate. That is why I say with social or human behaviour, since we can't be empirical, we at least owe ourselves the academic obligation to look at as many layers of the issue as is possible. So I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, simply saying for me they are incomplete unless I deep digger and satisfy myself intellectually I have exhausted any other explanations.

Don't think I agree with you there. Certain unfounded racial/ethnic stereotypes have been known to spread very virulently, and have been known to result in very unfortunate events. Not at all. You're refering of course to the holocaust, but you'll find, I think, with a deep reading of the times, that anti-semitism was no more widely held in Germany than anywhere else in the west. The difference is that a party took power...not because of its anti-semite policies, but in spite of them. I think you'll find that between 1928 and 1937, and in particular between 1933 and 1937, Hitler was virtually silent about anti-semitism. His "race laws" of 1935 were essentially slipped under the carpet and for the most part ignored until 1938. General anti-semitism in Germany neither increased nor decreased in Germany in the general public, nor in the rest of the west. The holocaust was a Nazi event, not a German event. Either way, it was not the result of the "spread" of anti-semitism. I would have to agree with Scott's opinion because certainly the preponderancy of historic texts indicate just that. I think what the holocaust teaches, is that the NAzis could not have engineered and engaged in such a wide spread and organized mass execution without the collaboration of many people in many countries. I think what the Nazis did is simply bring to a culmination a wide spread feeling. It in fact it picked up on a wide spread feeling and exploited it and quite frankly a lot of the holocaust fell into place like a snow-ball or cascading effect kind of like a wave in a crowd. It gained momentum because of the Nazis who led it, but it could have happened without collaborators from many nations. History shows a deep and continual link between Christian teachings and anti-semitism and so I think it is fair to say wherever there was a strong organzied religious institutional presence it existed just as where you look for the genocide of aboriginals or the slave tarde you find it present as well influencing people into believing their fellow humans are infidel and so can be wiped out since they are less then human.

It could given the precedent that seems to have been established. I myself find this a slippery slope. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion on a forum in a discussion and going the next step and encouraging people to hate people and engage in violence against them. That is precisely why forums have moderators though. I appreciate how hard it is to draw that line.

The only whining Higgly is coming from you. Speak for yourself and refrain from projecting your paranoia on people who do not agree with you. More to the point as usual you get it wrong. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry clarified the Egyptian and Jordanian Foreign Ministers were not part of an official Arab League delegation. They know damn well Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan do not support them but Morrcco , the UAE and Tunsia do. That said, I have no doubt in practical reality they have enough clout to go back to the Arab League and win the other countries over except Syria and probably Libya. Try understand the Arab League is a set of nations who very rarely agree on anything so you don't shoot off at the mouth saying you represent them all without running the risk of alienating some of all of its members. Its called diplomacy Higgly.

I commend you JBG for this post and you know why I do. By the way don't let my sometiems debates with you fool you. You know I know maybe I argue a certain point with you because I probably deep down inside fear you are right. Let's leave this coded inter-Zionist conspiratorial complement at that.

It is my personal belief certain things are so important cost is not an excuse and this is one of them. If we forget why soldiers have died for us, we simply invite more wars. If we allow terrorists to have us this worried about the cost of security that we forget the very values that make us different from these terrorists we give them exactly what they want. Our soldiers were not and are not terrorists. What they fought for is everything we stand for and precisely why we now fight terror. How do we expect our children to understand their roots? How do we expect them to know what they stand for if we don't explain to them what their origins are and how they have what they have. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, all these things are children just assume exist only exist because of soldiers. I find someone saying its too expensive bullshit. We can NOT afford to forget. The consequences will be far more expensive let alone disasterous.

Good question...does anyone have the answer? I smell lawyers on this board, so I suspect there are some hereabouts who might be able to answer. Not Criminal Court Scott. At least in my legal opinion. I doubt you could prove criminal intent needed to prove a criminal charge. In regards to a human rights violation my legal reasoning which I think will be the case is as follows-in this case the political opinion was expressed in a forum specifically designed to engage in political debate. The person knew or ought to have known when they went on the forum there might be political opinions she did not agree with and they were not specifically made to her but in a general context. That to me distinguishes it froma hate crime where you direct a non specific audience to hurt or injure someone. I think another reason you won't see a court interfering is a common sense one. Most forums police themselves and do not allow anyone to personally atack another or get too abusive. Its a context that prevents hate mongering making it highly unlikely a court feels it needs to protect anyone. I mean for heaven's sakes if you go on a forum to debate a political opinion then feel you can claim someone's opinion is a human rights violation that makes a mockery of human rights and turns them into such a subjective concept you could never even begin to create the legal doctrine for its application. Its a nonsense bull-shit nuisance claim that will be thrown out. (lol, if I am wrong I am the first to be thrown in jail along with my soon to be prison mate Leafless ahah he will be trapped with the Zionist prisoner from hell)

Well the Charter of Rights is definitely not absolute, the entire charter is subject to the word "reasonable" so to me that made the entire thing a qualified set of rights to begin with as opposed to entrenched rights that can never be changed. In regards to limits on freedom of speech no a political forum will not be shut down simply because of debate. The reason for that is most forums carefully censor out any dialogue when it becomes abusive. They do so not out of politics but for the common sense reason if there is too much abuse the forum quickly deteriorates and no one uses it any more. That said, for me to be charged with a hate crime, I would argue it has to be more then an expressed unpopular political opinion clearly done to an audience debating. It would have to be presented to the public at large, and tell the public to go and hurt and hate someone. I personally think censoring political opinions only should be done in extreme circumstances where no other remedy is available and someone is getting hurt or could be hurt. Man I can't think of anything more fragile and precious then freedom of speech. Me personally I only see the need for censorship when it comes to child porno or violent porno.

What is a wind up radio? Where can you get it? You can get them at Canada Tire or almost any camping place. They have a crank. You simply wind the crank to give it energy. Look we all definitely should store water and food, candles, and things in the event of an emergency. Of course. But get real. The above is the kind of hysteria no different then in the 1950's when children were taught to "duck and cover" under their desks in the event of a nuclear bomb attack from the Russian commie bastards. People in the 1950's built bomb shelters and waited for the BIG ONE. I think it is important governments plan for terrorist attacks of course. But I also question the sanity of filling people with uneccesary fear. There is actually a dumb US government web site teaching kids how to prepare for terrorism. To me today's average kid would read it and say if their government is that stupid and writes such dumb web sites they have no chance at survival. There has to be common sense. Having lived in Israel where terrorism is a daily fact, people have learned there are many things they must do and be on guard for - but it is very practical - for example if one sees somebody leave a bag for any reason - you go up to that person and say, do not leave your bag alone. You see a lot of tourists being scolded by Israelis for doing that. The average Israeli sitting in an open air cafe has one eye open for anyone who looks like they are wearing too many clothes or looking unusually nervous. Its not hysteria or paranoia, just this sort of general awareness they have been taught when ever they are in a public place. But Israelis don't live in fear. They don't let this stuff get too extreme. They moderate the practical awareness with this cold hard understanding that no terrorist attack can be prevented evenw ith the best planning and so you must go on as positive as you can and not do this preventative stuff out of fear. British when they were getting bomb attacks fom the IRA in London, learned to be practically aware but they certainly didn't allow it to change their lives or have them hide at home. So I say yah, you should have water and non electric things and food supplies because you never know when there could be a weather catastrophe not just a terrorist attack, but no don't get so nut case you start building retreats and stock piling weapons/ The reality is, if there is an attack, there is only so much that can be done to prepare for it. The other point is, if you get too extreme about preparation, its just as bad as having none. If you get tooo extreme with the preparations, you are in fact buying into this faith belief that the terrorism HAS to happen instead of using some of that energy to try find other ways to prevent it from happening. If you become so paralyzed with fear it dominates your daily life, terrorists have already defeated you. I mean its like picking up a medical book and reading the never ending list of diseases and then saying hmmm, I better not leave my home again because of all the diseases I could get just breathing the air. Look I know when you go to a restaurant people could be sneezing in the food I eat, or have dirty hands and pick their nose and then touch my food, etc. but its a risk I sometimes am willing to take. Everyone has to take some sort of risk. Although if I were you people, I would think twice about those street hot dogs.

That, perhaps more than anything I could ever say, demonstrates the hate, self-hate, and envy that is pitted against caucasians in the west. It's why I don't want my daughter to inherit a world with no place to retreat to. The point is intolerance comes in all colours, shapes and sizes. If you think you can hide from it by hiding from it in a ghetto of your own kind, that with due respect is trite. See the difference between you and me is I would not retreat, I woulld meet it head on and state as I do now; RB what you said is a negative generalization and the moment you used the world ALL you simply engaged in the kind of exercise we call racism-i.e., making a negative generalization and assigning it to an entire group indiscriminately simply because of the fact they all share the same skin colour. Not ALL whites tried to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out other cultures-for that matter-non white groups as history has shown have been just as guilty of the same thing you accuse whites of. RB your racist opinion fuels people like Scott into thinking he can only deal with minorities by "retreating". Scott I have daughters. I have taught them not to retreat, but when faced with such comments, not to be afraid to address them using reasoning not fists. I know that sounds trite to you, but it is why they are what they are today and I am proud of them. I would never have taught them to retreat. Retreating to me is what people do when they do not feel proud of who they are. See to me RB's comments are not a threat, just a challenge that makes me a better human for being able to deal with them if I dont' hide from them or have to use violence against them and stand my ground and say - you don't want me to slur you simply because of your skin colour - don't you do it -either way its equally as wrong. I am in fact Scott arguing a classic form of Reform Judaism, not touchy feely hug stuff. I genuinely believe, you do yourself a great spiritual diservice retreating and not sharing your culture with RB to show him for every evil white boy he thinks he sees there are just as many good ones. I say that because that is precisely what Martin Luther King said, and he is my role model on such matters and I make no apology for such a bias, i.e., the belief we can be better people if we reach out not retreat from those we think are a threat to us and challenge them to look for things in common not look for things they think can justify their intolerance. Scott we all have to learn to stand our ground. Cherish your culture and your privacy, but dont' retreat. Share it precisely so that the RB's of the world don't continue to say what they do. If you retreat who will be there to challenge his slurs? You see the irony Scott. While you retreat, blithering cultural liberals such as me are left holding the bag and while I do not mind setting RB straight, I do not presume to be able to talk about the good things about your particular culture as well as you can. Oh by the way RB, Jews are Caucasians, and if you look at our history, yes in the ancient days we did a lot of fighting with Phillistines and such and today we have major problems in the Middle East, but no, we didn't go around converting people and trust me Jews were not exactly the kind of people to go around the world raping and pillaging. In fact Jews when they did go around the world were like Columbus and Marco Polo (yes both Jews). If you want to generalize, we tended to be merchants not warriors. Likewise there are many peoples within the white category and not all were Vikings or say the British or French or Americans. The last time I looked when Ukrainians or the Irish came to Canada they pretty much worked and had no time for raping or converting anyone although I do admit my Irish friends have taught me the virtues of a good story and a pint and U-2 is my fabourite band. Trite? No. Behind that "triteness" is respect. My being trite is genuine fondness for people different then me who I took the time to find thinhs in common with.

Your point was missed above but it is precisely why I do not think the PR system is a good one. If you look at PR in Israel or the PR system in Italy as two classic examples of how it works, the PR system in fact creates a permanent minority government put together by coalitions often of temporary alliances that produces a chaotic unstable form of government. I like our system precisely because it is more stable and not as subject to paralysis from these shaky coalitions that prevent government not enhance it. In theory PR sounds democratic but in reality it does the exact opposite-because it creates so much squabbling, no one's views get served you just have countless fights and stalemates. Thanks but if it aint broken why does it need to be fixed? Other then Leafless who feels Communist Francophone non Christian people with skin tans have destroyed the country, and a handful of academic geniuses who live in the world of theory and shun the world of practicality, who wants the PR system? No thanks. If I want constellations of feuding factions, I can go to a wrestling match and watch the steroid baboons.

Why thanks August. In between his choking Scott knows I respect him.

I think the video is an irelevant non news worthy minor incident taken out of context to be exploited by those looking for an excuse to demonize Israel and so I found it ironic being shown by a supporter of Israel whose comments I appreciated except his decision to use this video which I believe is a sad thing, not something to be proud of. That said, I agree entirely with your comments. Extremists and terrorists of any kind I despise. I hate people who hate.