Rue

"It seems like a little show of force is what has led to the problem. Don't suppose you have any idea of finding out what the British were doing before the Iranians took them in? I mean why start now to find out what it is you are expressing an opinion on right Figleaf? Its easier to just shoot off at the mouth and express an opinion based on nothing other then your being too lazy to find out what precipitated this? Not that you care about facts, but the British were patrolling waters in Iraq territory as per a UN resolution. They were NOT in Iranian waters nor were they showing any force. You shot off at the mouth as usual without finding out the facts. The Iranians abducted them as a show of force not the other way around. The Iranians abducted them one day before Iran was scheduled to discuss why it will tell the UN and the world to kiss its butt over its decision to continue to develop nuclear weapons. The timing of the abduction was pure political grand-standing. It also is a not so subtle message to the U.S. The U.S. arrested Iranian Revolutionary Guard inside Iraq organizing and engaging in terrorist acts and now Iran feels it should answer that with an arrest of its own. The problem is Iran went into Iraq waters to abduct the 15 British. Its childish bafoon like behaviour and muscle flexing and of course only you Figleaf would twist it around to have the British who were abducted flexing muscle. You and Polynewbie need to get a hotel room and get it over and done with.

What we have seen so far is that Quebecers do not like either the Liberals or Parti Quebecois. They are clearly turned off by both leaders. Mario Dumont has made a career of exploiting the fact that Quebecers like to complain and have it both ways and want to be seperatists and federalists at the same time and get the best of both-suck the federal system for all its worth while at the same time demanding independence. The Dumont brand of nationalism is what Quebec has always been about basically wanting complete independence from Canada as long as they can continue to receive every possible federal hand-out and benefit possible. So they call that nationalism. Its just old recycled Marcel Duplessis Union National verbage. Mario Dumont is simply a rehash of Dupplessis. He is very much a Quebec politician-no training in law or economics and never worked an honest job in his life. However he comes from a small town, can't speak English, and has no clue about any culture other then his own, so that goes down well with many Quebecers who can identify with his lack of education, lack of cultural sophistication, inability to converse in English, and basic small town simplicity. Quebecers at the provincial level have always hated voting for bilingual Francophone Quebecers-they see it as a sell out and so Charest is seen as a federal whore. His cozing up to Harper is seen as a sell out by many although of course no Quebecer would ever complain of the benefits Charest has been able to obtain. Now as for this PQ leader he is a joke. He is assoft as a politician gets. He comes across as an inexperienced Mama's boy. Charest may look like a fat old woman, but this Boisclair is a woman. I do not say that to put down gays. I say that in the sense that his feminine approach to politics does not resonate in a blue collar province that likes their politicians a bit on the vulgar and messy side. Prissy politicians like Boo Boo Bourassa were barely tolerated. Quebecers like someone who looks like he would know how to pave a road or drive a truck. Boisclair and Charest are just a bit too manicured and hair puffed for the average Quebecer. I personally think all 3 are full of crappola but then I left the province years ago because I did not want ot be treated as a second class citizen in my own province.

"Almost all of the 20% that do understand French also understand English better than most foreign language Immigrants who live and work here for 30 years and are all equally Canadian Citizens." "What's all of the Billions upon Billions in money being spent on French outside of Quebec realy all about?" Here are the 2001 statistics from Statistics Canada: (the 2006 census is not available for another year) I prefer to work with reality rather then someone's off the cuff made up numbers. Now as for the slur about immigrants being here for 30 years and not speaking English - I suppose it goes hand in hand with your anti French tirade barely disguised intolerance of anything non English which evidently is also a code reference against immigrants as well. You want to in-breed and hide from diversity be my guest. Just remain in your small town. I don't want to run into your children. Rate of English-French bilingualism, Canada, provinces, territories and Canada less Quebec, 1991, 1996 and 2001 % 1991 1996 2001 Canada 16.3 17.0 17.7 Newfoundland and Labrador 3.3 3.9 4.1 Prince Edward Island 10.1 11.0 12.0 Nova Scotia 8.6 9.3 10.1 New Brunswick 29.5 32.6 34.2 Quebec 35.4 37.8 40.8 Ontario 11.4 11.6 11.7 Manitoba 9.2 9.4 9.3 Saskatchewan 5.2 5.2 5.1 Alberta 6.6 6.7 6.9 British Columbia 6.4 6.7 7.0 Yukon Territory 9.3 10.5 10.1 Northwest Territories 7.7 8.3 Nunavut 4.1 3.8 Canada less Quebec 9.8 10.2 10.3 Name Mother Tongue English1 French2 English and French3 Other4 Total Canada 17,572,170 6,741,955 122,660 5,202,240 29,639,035 Newfoundland and Labrador 500,065 2,180 335 5,495 508,075 Prince Edward Island 125,215 5,670 440 2,065 133,385 Nova Scotia 834,315 34,155 2,590 26,510 897,570 New Brunswick 465,720 236,775 5,290 11,935 719,710 Quebec 572,085 5,788,655 55,420 709,425 7,125,580 Ontario 8,079,500 493,630 40,340 2,672,080 11,285,550 Manitoba 836,980 44,775 2,780 219,160 1,103,700 Saskatchewan 825,865 18,035 1,490 117,765 963,150 Alberta 2,405,935 59,735 6,260 469,225 2,941,150 British Columbia 2,865,300 56,100 7,525 939,945 3,868,875 Yukon Territory 24,840 890 85 2,700 28,525 Northwest Territories 28,985 965 90 7,065 37,105 Nunavut 7,370 400 20 18,875 26,665

The idea was floated and dismissed by the Atlantic provinces who felt they had more advantages remaining as seperate provinces. To argue such a thing you would have to establish how it would be of ecnomic benefit to the provinces and place them in a better position then they are now. I doubt the people of New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland will dismantle their provincial governments because the logical place to put the provincial capital of an Atlantic province would be Halifax the largest city in the Atlantic. I doubt given the regional loyalties you would make it past the above post. I mean as it is you have the people of Cape Breton constantly talking about their own province and Labrador has always felt a strain being associated with Newfoundland as it is. New Brunswick being bilingual would expect the Atlantic Province to be fully bilingual which is another issue. More to the point the funding out of such a united province would never get consensus from the provinces who would all fight just like the 12 provinces do now with Canada.

And I think it is equally assisine to assume this in light of the fact that recent warming cycles have featured temperatures well above current levels, and climate has been constantly changing. I think that any politician is as likely to propose lowering his own people's standard of living as Gore is likely to give up his mansion or Suzuki his diesel-belching tour bus. Two things; 1-the relation of man-made activity to global warming has already been proven-the rise of temperature not associated to man made activities is not what we are talking about and the attempt to dismiss man made activities as not contributing to the warming by arguing its all natural is b.s., its not all natural, that is the point, if it was only natural, it would not have increased in such a dramatic and obvious manner 2-getting fat Al or anyone else to change their lifestyle is precisely the point and it is no more assinine to deal with that denial by the masses as it is dealing with an alcoholic or cigarette smoker who is deeply addicted and won't change their habits either-governments can and will have no choice in the coming years to enact laws curtailing consumption of energy and emissions of fossil fuels. Its already started. (maybe we willall have to give up our suv's and stop farting, what can I say)

"One can learn alot about people and their thought processes by reading the thread. "Truthies" post and discuss evidence relating to the issue. The non truthies just try to clogg it up with garbage because they cannot argue the issues."] Hello-the fact that you perceive things in a certain way doesn't make that the gospel. As for your recommendations, may I politely state you read subjective opinion comments from people who simply tell you what you want to hear. Venture outside your Larouchian thought spores and embrace other patterns fo cognition. Start with Alice In Wonderland. Why? Because the theories you propose have already been stated in that work and if you are going to quote them, go back to the source and quote them properly.

Well its nice to know the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right. where you came up with this .28% number from is anyone's guess. Maybe you should stick to your anti-gay tirades.

Does anyone care to deal with the scientific facts? According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers on page 8, the scientific world has arrived at a consensus agreement that increased levels of greenhouse gases due to HUMAN activity have been the major influence of the recent warming patterns and NOT natural phenomena. Apprently had we had know greenhouse emissions it could be said our planet would be so much colder, (i.e., 30 degrees centigrade or 54 degrees farenheit) that it might be uninhabitable or it would look a lot different then it does now however I have no idea how some of you posters made the leap from saying since there are greenhouse gases not created by man made activities, there is NO warming effect from man made activities. That kind of denial makes no sense and to me is no different then people who argued there was no direct link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Can we deal with the facts? Apparently the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, (36-70% of the greenhouse effect), carbon dioxide (9-26% of the greenhouse effect), methane (4-9%) and ozone (3-7%). What you deniers choose to selectively skip over is the fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the earth’s atmosphere increased 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These increases have been objectively quantified and no one is denying them. So then explain to me. Why is it these increases of carbon dioxide are their highest since data has been able to be collected by scientists (from looking into the ice cores)? Scientists say the carbon dioxide in all the 650,000 years they can measure, has never been so high. In fact from what I have read most geologists agree that carbon dioxide levels haven’t been this high in 24 million years. It is a scientific fact that 75% of HUMAN created carbon dioxide emissions during the last 20 years have come from our cars, trucks and using oil (fossil fuel) according to the Working Group of Intergovernment Agencies on Climate change. They state the rest of the explanation for this surge in carbon dioxide concentration can be attributed deforestation. So I state again-it is ridiculous to pretend our use of cars, trucks, and burning off fossil fuels, plus the deforestation of our rain and other forests, all human made activities as well as our decision to burn coal, use aerosol sprays and discharge other chemicals into the atmosphere from our industrial activities has not exasperated and accelerated the greenhouse effect past what would have otherwise been a normal warming pattern nowhere near what we see now. I think it is absolutely asinine to think we can pollute the atmosphere and it has no permanent consequence.

Catch me may I commend you on a point you made that I just read and am pleased to see you picked up on. I may debate you on posts forcefully but that is a sign of respect. For me yes as a Jew, when I consider the aboriginal feelings towards the Mother Earth it is different but similiar to the mythology of Jews and our feeling we have some sort of spiritual responsibility or connection to Israel. However for me, I am actually more comfortable with the aboriginal concept that the earth is a living, breathing organism, and no one owns it, and at best we can all share it, if we respect its rules. For me personally while I understand the mythology in Judaism associatd with a covenant to a spiritual being to live in a particular land and cultivate it - I of course like many Jews don't see that covenant as a paradign for racism or intolerance, simply a way to maintain an indentity over many thousands of years. I see that covenant as a responsibility that also entails finding peaceful ways to live with others, Jewish or not and I think for me, Judaism's more mystical beliefs are closer to the aboriginal ones and equally as important to study because as aboriginal spiritual paths have taught, the physical world, the material world, is an illusion. It causes a lot of people to fixate or get stuck at a certain point, and be unable to grow past that. The fluid nature of the aboriginal soul is something we Westerners caught up in a material world do not understand or feel comfortable with and it is a major reason for conflicts over land rights. Much of the legal fiction we use in law to define property rights is an absurdity to aboriginals and why should it not be? For that matter, when I look at my own religion or Islam or Christianity, I criticize them all equally for the way they have not paid enough attention to the rules of nature and the concept of the earth as a fragile being that needs to be respected and shared not fought over. I criticize all three mono-theistic religions for their violent wars over land and personally feel in that sense the aboriginals approach to the earth is something all three of our religons need to learn from. We are children in that sense who need to look to the aboriginals for guidance. As longa s some people keep seeing aboriginals as drunks and angry radicals they will miss that point. I am not hero-worshipping aboriginals. Wat I am saying though is many of their spiritual beliefs will become the basis of laws in the future in the so called material world as we try preserve the plant from our man made pollutions and poisons. Whether we like it or not, our laws of property and environment have already started to call on aboriginal concepts-case in point -collective rights to share natural resources between different groups.

AAAAAA! I agree with you.

Nonsense. When the UN set up the State of Israel in 1948, it also created a state of Palestine. The Jews agreed to the UN plan despite many misgivings. The Arabs rejected the UN plan claiming they were going to get rid of the Jews rather than set up a separate nation. The Middle East has gone steadily downhill from there. The 'desperations and hopelessness' of Palestinians is self-induced. Thank you for at least bothering to refer to history. Hey you know what, for me, I personally am of the opinion the real source of Palestinian suffering was the Arab League's decision to delibately use them as pawns and insist on the refugee camps and not allowing Palestinians citizenship in Arab countries. I also think had the Arab League simply accepted an Israeli state back in 1949, a second Palestinian state could also have been created and could have formed a working association with Israel and Jordan and I still believe that can happen one day if we can find a way to put all this hatred aside. Its one thing to try find a way to reach out to moderate Muslims and Palestinians and Israelis and Jews, then reach out to neutrals in the Christian community and other faith groups. That is possible and is happening you just don't read about those kind of people trying to find a way to defuse the violence. I personally believe in the future, people from other conflicts such as aboriginals, or Irish, will help because they will have credibility and will remain neutral but people from both sides will know they know what it is like to fight over land rights or secretarian violence. The seeds of peace are there. That said, what I worry about are not a few twits in Canada who think they are experts on a history they do not bother to research-what I worry about are young Muslims who are either taught or have come to believe from personal experience Israelis and or Jews are evil. I also worry in reverse the same way when I see young jews and/or Israelis feeling Mulsims or Palestinians or Arabs will never ever stop hating them. Extremism on either side is what worries me. I don't give a hoot for one second about the Figleafs of the world who simply want to take a side and incite. I care about young Palestinians and Muslims trapped in a cycle of despair and unemployment and who only see Israelis when they are soldiers. I also worry about Israelis whose experience of Palestinians is limited to terrorist attacks and Hamas. In spite of it all I believe Palestinians and Israelis will find a way. Can you tell I read and was inspired by the diary of Ann Frank or Eli Wiesel? Of course I am. I also am inspired by a Canadian Political science Professor at Western, Salim Mansur and many other moderate peace loving Muslims not to mention anyone who has genuinely avoided taking sides and not conceived this conflict as bad versus good but two equally tortured people with no rights or wrongs, just mutual fear that generates the hatred.

I'm not going to parse all of your posts. Suffice to say that both Rue and I consider you to be anti-Jewish. Sorry due you made me laugh unintentionally. Oy what an understatement. Its cool. I will let you carry the rest of this.

With due respect Topaz I have to agree with Argus on this one although I think your concern is commendable. Look, our refugee system has not worked. If you look at the actual source countries that create refugees, then compare that to the countries where we accept refugees from, you will note the two lists are not even close. The refugee system we signed on to by adapting the UN convention on refugees was created in my opinion by upper middle class legal scholars who felt liberal guilt about refugees. Their ideas and concepts with due respect were not based on the real world. Real refugees die from diaheria, dehydration, cholera, malnutrition in refugee camps. Many are children or the elderly who are the first to die. What you see coming here are the professional class of third world countries.We are stripping away the future of third world countries and condemning them to never-ending poverty by enabling their professional class to come to Canada through a refugee system that basically ignores the refugees dying in refugee camps. Most of the refugees we are seeing understand the immigration system and have been advised its easier to come to Canada, flush their passport down the airplane toilet and claim refugee status so they do not have to show they can qualify with language and training skills. Many simply want medicare. Many the moment they get their citizenship, go right back to the alleged country of toruture and bring back more relatives. Immigrants seeking to get into Canada of course will take the easiest route. Its human nature. I am not judging anyone. I would do the same to make a better life for my family. What I am saying though is the refugee system is a sham. Its a way to jump the line and the vast majority of alleged refugees are simply economic migrants seeking new opportunities. I believe if we have a genuine concern for refugees then we would have set up a system that properly screens them so that non refugees can't clog the system and most importantly we would go directly to the refugee camps. Come on how many refugees to you see coming from Carfur to Canada...how many refugees came from Cambodia, Rawana, Burundi. Very fwe. There is a reason for that. Don't get me wrong. I want a country that has compassion and can help the genuine needy. I hope we all do. Its just I think its time we seriously examine why real refugees can't get here and take a closer look at the people coming here and claiming to be refugees. I think the selection criteria and definition of refugee has to be changed. I think the Refugee determination system has to be rehauled and the selection and screening process take place at refugee camps oversees and not when alleged reugees come to Canada and throw their passports out at the border.

"Its getting warmer as a natural cycle, its happening independently of man and there is nothing we can do about it...." " I admit I do not know a lot about this "global warming" science but believe it to be a hoax for political reasons....." " Its in the Report From Iron Mountain (which is real according to JKG) and a good case is made in "The Global Warming Swindle". If as you say you do not know a lot about the global warming science why do you make comments such as the world is getting warmer because of a natural cycle happening independently from man and there is nothing "we" can do about it. On the one hand you admit you have no scientific basis to make such comments, but on the other hand shoot off at the mouth something that is based on an assumption of science. Watch it your buddy Fig-Leaf of the Anti-Israel alliance (or what I call the Men of the Appocolypse, the 4 Horsemen, you Figgy, Higgy and Myata)gets quite upset when I write posts contradicting myself, so careful in case he reads something other then anti-Israeli posts and reads your contradiction. He may call you a liar. But I forgive you. Now on a more serious note-get real with your "Larouchian" government conspiracies and repeating "reports' then clearly are not based on science but subjective opinions that merely recite the preconceived opinions you want to hear. Educate your self about the scientific process and what scientists are saying. This passive limp macaroni there is nothing you can do about "it" stance is silly. All of us can reduce our consumption of energy, recycle, and find envrionmentally friendly ways to engage in day to day activities. Its not rocket science and the energy you spend on conspiracy theories could also be spent enlightening yourself on conservation. Challenge yourself. Try learn just a tad of science and find out why man made pollutants, most certainly have contributed to the depletion of the ozone layer and the warming up of the planet and that is measurable, and can be distinguished from the so called natural cycles you mention. The fact is the vast majority of the planet's scientists are in unanimous agreement as to what man-made pollutants and industrial activity has done to the climate and ecological system. I personally believe people who feel they have no control and can't grasp scientist turn to conspiracy theories ( a form of religion) for solace. I would suggest educating yourself as to the cause and effect of man made pollutants might do you more good then engaging in conspiracy theories.

The only thing offensive is you trying to portray yourself as a defender of Arab culture. Excuse me if I have a good laugh at that one. This coming from a poster who has yet to write anything other then his subjective personal opinions. As for finding me offensive, finally! What took you so long!

Thats just the mentality of a lot of people, logic doesn't work in their favour so they turn to insults and innuendos. If they actually knew anything they would know that many Israelis are against the occupation as well. They just get shot at with real bullets when protesting. When people criticize Israel and use arguements that make negative generalizations about all Jews or use the holocaust to suggest their is a double standard and "Israelis" or "Jews" should act in a different way then the rest of the world-then yes I call that anti-semitism. If you want to criticize Israel without engaging in your Lyndon Larouche clap trap about world conspiracies and the Jews controlling congress and the banks, then go for it. Make negative generalized statements about Jews when criticizing Israel and I will be the first to call you an anti-semite. Its funny the only people on these posts whining about anti-semitic accusations can't seem to discuss Israel without making simplistic negative generalizations about all Jews. Please don't let me keep you from one of your meetings to discuss the world.

Which is it, Rue? Which statement is the lie? I must confess when I respomnd toyou I write quickly because I consider you a petty annoyance. Your credibility is shot. Neither of the two comments was originally directed to me. It's really very simple. Just answer -- which of your contradictory comments was the lie? So you are saying your second comment was the lie. Okay fine. Now that's established, can you please cite a documentary source for this promise you say the British made? I'd like to read about it further. You make less sense by the minute. How can they have promised nothing if in fact they promised something? Your problem is you can't seem to write a straight word. And now we have one of your old tired lies, rather than the fresher variety. I have never written a word against Jewish people and I defy you to prove me wrong or eat your false malicious words, you dirty (proven) liar. I said the statement you are calling a lie is a typing error Mr. Conspiracy and coming from you any accusation about lacking in credibility is a joke considering you have yet to contribute anything on these posts other then personal subjective opinions. As for you calling me dirty I wash every day and if you want to smell my arm-pits I can make arrangements.

I guess your idea of a reasonable discussion is to misrepresent and not want to deal with facts. Also what are you babbling about. Teh British never promised the lage of nations ot create a Jewish homeland. They promised to administer the Palestinian zone ON BEHALF of the League of Nations and assist the League of Nations set up the homeland for Israel. why don't you read what actually happened. The fact that you want to ignore history doesn't make it untrue. I better clarify the above. The British nevcer promised the Leage of Nations it would break its promise to get the Jews their homeland. It was a typing error. as for the idiot question about whether the ritish promised this to the League it is historical fact proven by british speeches and documens given to the League of Nations and whicha re now artifacts. Fro Myata to pretend this is not the case is hialrious. also Myata's reference to a clerk is absolute b.s. The Muslims whos it on the inter-faith council with Jewish Rabbiahs and Christian clergy were well aware of what was going on and did not object. The alleged cleric is not on the council and is a Hamas member who later admitted what he said was not absed on what the Muslim clerics on the inter-faith council said. I suppose Myata if you want to keep passing off these lies as truths that is your prerogative. You seem so caught up in your Figleaf world of bad and good and Israel as an evil demon does it make a difference to you what really happened? as for the Israeli General you misquoted why don't your read back what he really said in full before you misrepresent what he said. I am tired of this b.s.

There it is in a nutshell. Say anything other than the Israel party line, and you will be shunned by the Israelite community. No matter who you are, and no matter what you have accomplished. Higgly I am tired of yur negative generalizations designe to slur all Jews. Yout hink if you use the world "Israelite" this somehow waters down your anti-semitic slur? Grow up. Each time you make your generalized slurs I have only one thing to say to you-you are pathetic.

Which is it, Rue? Which statement is the lie? I must confess when I respomnd toyou I write quickly because I consider you a petty annoyance. Let me spell it out. The League of Nations as I stated many times had a mandate to create a state for Jews in Palestine. The British lied to the League. They said if the League allowed them to administer the Palestinian area they would see to it the Jews would get their own country. This pledge was to the League of Nations to get the right to administer Palestine. while the British represented to the League they would help set up the Jewish state, they went to the arab world and told them they had no intention of ever doing such a thing. They lied and played the League of Nations and world Jewery like fools. They then seized 80% of Palestine and created Jordan illegally. So what part of what I stated above is a li Figleaf. I confess I wrote too fast. What I meant to say is the British never promsied anything on their own to anyone-they promised it to the League of Nations. See your problem Figleaf is to date you have deliberately chosen to ignore history because in your simplistic anti-Jewish world where jews have no rights to universal sufferage you refuse to look at the history behind how the British and French and their artificial seizure and creation of colonies caused this mess. I am of course through wasting my energy with you. You have made it clear to anyone who reads your posts you are not interested in anything but your stale, unoriginal, Israel bad, Jews have no rights, position. You bore me.

You really are an oaf. Reported to moderator. Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that the fact. You are playing semantics and you know it.

Your original point was that Jews had been oppressed by Arab cultures. I pointed out that if you meant Egypt and Babylon, they were not Arab cultures. The presense of an Arab or two or ten or six hundred in either of those empires won't change that a bit. You need to accept the facts of history ... Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Babylonia were not Arab cultures. And neither were the Persians for that matter. You really are an oaf. Don't play the fool on this issue. Find out who implemented dhimmitude and why and then give it a rest. Your attempt to engage in a semantical arguement about "Arab" civilizations is ridiculous.

I guess your idea of a reasonable discussion is to misrepresent and not want to deal with facts. Also what are you babbling about. Teh British never promised the lage of nations ot create a Jewish homeland. They promised to administer the Palestinian zone ON BEHALF of the League of Nations and assist the League of Nations set up the homeland for Israel. why don't you read what actually happened. The fact that you want to ignore history doesn't make it untrue.