Rue

Hi TSS and you know I love your posts so this is just debate. The so called WHITE middle class leftists and champagne socialists support Trudeau and are apologizing for him. Who do you think his constituents are? As for you adding the word WHITE, he has plenty of middle class leftist champagne socialist supporters who are not "white" and in fact he panders to anyone thing that moves that is not white if you are going to use racial references, so I am not sure what you are getting at throwing in the white remark. Jagmeet Singh is NOT white but he sure as hell is another middle class leftist and champagne socialist wile we are at it. Mr. Singh like Trudeau has never worked, He got his law degree then used his ethnicity and connections in his community to get elected provincially. He claims to fight racism but he has no problem using his race card to get elected. Its life. Now Jagmeet makes a heart felt speech about how hurtful Trudeau was but this is the same Jagmeet who remains completely silent about Bill 21 in Quebec which directly discriminates against any visible minority-suddenly he knows when to not play the race card. As far as I am concerned Singh and Trudeau are both full of it. This is not about skin colour. Its about people claiming to be superior to others and then being shown to be no better than the people they claim to be superior to. Its also about people using the race card when its convenient. Blaming or stereotyping people fo how they react to the stupid actions of Trudeau is immaterial to the implications of what he did. Anyone who did what Trudeau did running for public office let alone seeking any kind of job would be fired. The fact he proclaimed Tory candidates to be racists for past comments when he did what he did makes him a hypocrite of the worst kind. This repeats his sense of privilege where he called out the Tory government he defeated as unethical over Mike Duffy and then in less than 3 years has violated every basic precept of ethical behaviour there is including accepting vacations, interfering in the legal process for politically partisan reasons and allowing his Finance Minister to engage in insider trading to sell shares of Morneau's company before a new law cut into the value of the shares. You feel sorry for Trudeau? Why?. Trudeau is a spoiled, sheltered, two faced, hypocrite, period. He is a silver spoon posing as a man of the people and once again his pants fell down and we see the same short comings again and again. There is nothing to feel sorry for. In fact feeling sorry for him if we must use the stereotype is something probably a champagne drinking socialist would do since they were at the same gathering as him where he needed to go to hell with his Mr. Dressup Routine.

Reality time: https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/ https://saveourskiesvt.org/category/news/technological-disaster/ https://news.yahoo.com/f-35-problem-wont-easy-195300503.html https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-1-45-trillion-f-35-still-cant-get-off-the-ground/ The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has in fact been in development for 18 years and is 8 years behind schedule. Its acquisition costs have exceeded $428 billion, which is double the initial estimate of $233 billion. Right now the lifetime operation and maintenance costs of the F35 is $1.2 trillion. Its design problems are not going away: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7158309/F-35s-problems-continue-documents-reveal.html Israel has allegedly redesigned the helmet which is supposed to replace naked eye vision and extended its flight range for their version. For Israel requiring a multi-purpose stealth fighter might make sense, for Canada no.

He and his party have accused numerous people of being racist-how could he not expect these photos to be thrown back at him. The moment he began pointing the finger at others as racists for past comments and behaviour, he exposed himself. He knew these photos existed as did everyone else. Its called karma. He threw out crap and it was thrown back at him. What it shows is what you and I and everyone should know. He is a rich privileged sheltered boy with affectations that come from a privileged life where he was never challenged and could do no wrong and never grew up with anyone with a sun tan. What it shows is he is a privileged player no different than his father. His father drove around during WW2 in a motor cycle in Quebec wearing a WW1 German army helmet while his fellow Quebecers were dying in Europe fighting Germans. Justin one year after 9-11 was dressing up as some Arab story book character when he was 29. Also do note where his hands are. For someone who is so quick to call other racists and sexist oh do look where his hands are. He has skeletons. This just another example of his affectations and true self. For me what is far more serious is his conduct with Lavalin, his conduct with people in his own party who questioned him and his sense of privilege when he has engaged in ethical violations to name many issues of concern. The first concern is the deficit spending he has saddled the country with. He deserves the heat on this and Jagmeet Singh can now play the teary eyed victim to try manipulate votes. That won't work either. For those who heroworship Trudeau maybe its a wake up call who knows. When he told aboriginal peoples at a closed door fund raiser raising the issue of mercury poisoninhg, " thank you for your donations" and dismissed them rudely, he showed his true self-an arrogant, snot nosed rich boy playing politics but never far from the silver spoon which is permanently wedged up his buttocks.

I respectively disagree with my bretheren Dougie, Wes, Often, Mrs. Bush et al in their defense of the orange man. How do you overstate or excuse lying? Trump has a pathological pesonality disorder. Some of his lying is deliberate and pre-meditated and with respect you people defend him because of his political positions. If he was a Democrat involved in the same lyng you would call him out as you did Bill Clinton or Hilary Clinton. One's political opinions should not excuse their lying. I think a lot of people dismiss Trump's lying just as they were blind to Michael Jackson being a pedophile. They had the behaviour in their face but because of the celebrity status look the other way.

Thanks Dougie. You forgot to finish it off with 4 more years of JT as well.

Capricious process? The leader of a country lies non stop, engages in blatant dishonesty and you call it capricious to hold him accountable? I call it capricious to try defend what he has done and refer to his farting and long toe nails as thunderbolts and talons. As for your invoking things from the past I can only assume you got your hands on some kind of recreational substance and are hallucinating.

Do you really think Trump lies to people because they "deserve" it and has never lied to anyone who does not deserve it? Really? Give me a break. More to the point who deserves to be lied to? Even if you disagree with someone's political views why would you think if they disagree with you, lying to them is acceptable? Lying is lying, period. You are trying to rationalize being dishonest on the grounds its ok if you don't agree with a person to lie to them. That's a kind of half-assed way to justify being a liar......if Trump did what he did but was Clinton would you say what you do? Of course not. Just because you agree with his policies does not mean he is not responsible for his lies and unethical and boorish behavior. He has turned the POTUS into his POTTY.

I am concerned about the environment. I am concerned first and foremost about non recycleable garbage, i.e., plastics, then radioactive waste, heavy metal wastes including mercury. I am concerned about the on-going destruction of the remaining rain forests in Brazil not to mention Indonesia which have directly impacted on the environment. I am concerned with any pollution. I just do not think taxing people without giving thought to the tax is the way to address the issue. The assumption increased taxes will necessarily reduce use of fossil fuel is bullshit. Its an assumption that has no empirical proof of a causal connection.If we are serious about the environment then we give tax incentives to industry and individuals creating direct solutions to pollution and focus our use away from fossil fuel to alternative fuels or energy sources.

Taxme thanks for the concern but I do not engage in oral intercourse, discourse or any other activity with any leftists that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Thanks for the concern. Actually he was not a closest socialist. He was neither right or left but he showed an understanding of urban development and its relation to the environment way ahead of his time and Mayors to the right and left of him ideologically followed many of his ideas precisely because they were so well balanced. He also was not a bad Minister of Health. You will find anyone hard pressed to say anything bad about him left or right of the spectrum. I liked him for his approach to the waterfront, the environment and how he could balance business development and environmental issues that clashed and could find a balanced approach for both. John Sewell, John Tory, Art Eggleton, Mel Lastman, David Miller, Barbara Hall, June Rowlands, Fred Beavis, all after him, respected him genuinely. You get that many different egos liking a guy he did something right. I met him once. He was talking to homeless people and others about urban development and they all respected him and he did not miss a beat in treating everyone down to earth. I know it was only a 5 minute conversation but he was retired and still open to talking to people and enjoyed our questions. His wife has dementia and he is dealing with that with grace. He also is a spokesperson for death with dignity a very difficult topic I have worked with so I think his help there is that he has been very very compassionate to people in pain and afraid to die with pain or dementia. I don't hero worship anyone but Montreal Canadiens former players and Diana Rigg when she wa Mrs. Emma Peel on the Avengers so relax. I will brush my teeth though.

I did because I thought your point on Hezbollah was a bit inaccurate. They shot at me and my friends. I was engaging in peaceful activity and not in Lebanon. My crime was being a Jew. I make a point of knowing my enemy. They are highly educated and disciplined and murderous to the extreme. They despise many humans not just Jews. Their treatment of Sunni and Maronite Christians in their own country as well as women, gays, and their own Shiites is as despicable. They blew up Beirut needlessly. It was a beautiful city before they armed themselves and decided to seize the country with terror.

Me as well. My opinions are not something I hold on you. Dispose of them at will. It is your right. I continue to respect your words I just have my own feelings that are strong about specific issues such as terrorists and I am the first to admit they are based on blood not logic..

Woop tee do? Is that the answer you'd like? For someone who shows a lack of interest in the opinion of others you expect it shown to you so does my wop tee do response also ring appropriate or do you think there is a double standard for you and your "logic"? The topic is ethnicity Dougie not who you dated but speaking about your logic and how you arrived at the conclusion Siekh women are attractive warriors sorry I think you are engaging in more romantic notions. Here: http://www.angelfire.com/trek/baldev/res/default/womenabuse.pdf Dougie I live in a different dimension from you. Terrorism taught me that first hand and that violence is wrong and there is no excuse for it and some of us are blind to it. I appreciate your right to romantic notions about specific ethnic women.

That was illogical. Clearly I was providing a basis for how I arrived at my stated subjective opinion and nowhere did I claim my position was logically superior to yours or anyone else's.

Actually Hezbollah does not have a uniform when it engages in terrorist actions and its been known to have worn IDF uniforms: https://www.nysun.com/foreign/enemy-donned-idf-uniforms-in-lebanon/38156/ As a general rule it does not wear uniforms unless its for parades and to show off to the media, i.e., http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2014/11/07/New-ninja-uniforms-of-Hezbollah-s-elite-forces-unveiled-.html It is true in Syria because they have engaged in both asymmetric warfare and guerrilla tactics some of their units may have had khaki uniforms but they are not uniform. No they are not structured like a traditional army with officers and ranks: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/exclusive-the-hezbollah-military-command-structure/ No Hezbollah is not an army or even a militia. It is groups or cells of about 12 each with a leader but that leader can be quickly changed if killed. If anything all members of the cell are interchangeable if one dies. Anyone can lead. They are the most educated and disciplined of terror groups right now in Syria and they have recruited into their ranks Sunnis, Druze and Christians although obviously the vast majority are Shiite. This thread was about ethnic diversity not Hezbollah. Hezbollah ironically is against ethnic diversity. It wants a one world Shiite Muslim council to rule the world and considers anyone who does not follow its version of Islam to be the enemy. Ethnic diversity is the anti-thesis of the Islamic Dhimmitude Hezbollah subscribes to which makes it hate any Muslims as much as it does we Jews or anyone else if they think we do not agree with them. They are cowards. They believe in killing and torturing civilians to spread fear. They are a classic example of what happens when someone becomes extreme about hating ethnic diversity. That is their only relevance to this thread. As for anyone who tries to argue terrorists are the result of being treated unfairly I say bullshit. Far more non terrorists come out of unfair environments than terrorists and rather than use violence and indiscriminate, gratuitous violence as their method of expression justifying it by claiming they were treated unfairly, the vast majority of humans do not become terrorists when they are treated unfairly. To justify terrorism by making terrorisms victims of unfairness rationalizes their behavior, justifies it as understandable cause and effect and it insults the majority of humans who do NOT choose terrorism when faced with injustice but choose instead peace, rational discourse and to control their primal negative emotions in favour of logic and compassion. Anyone who wants to excuse terrorism as a result of a victim acting out I say this-you need to visit and see who terrorists are and who they kill. They kill first and foremost the very people they claim to defend-they are their ultimate and first and primary enemy precisely because the majority of the people they claim to lead won't turn into the savages they have. I have been there. I have seen the mothers refuse to let their children be taken in the night. I have seen men lit on fire with rubber necklaces for being accused of not supporting Hamas. Hezbollah doesn't go door to door with pamphlets recruiting. It goes into neighbourhoods and kills rampantly innocent civilians and for such good Muslims as they claim to be they are not adverse to raping and mutilating the bodies of women, children and men. This country has choices. We chose to welcome people who were different, not kill them. We chose to welcome difference to avoid becoming stagnant.

Do you really think Israel sends a spambot to this forum? Ahahahahah. You are hilarious. Bam! Bam! Oy! Oy!

To start with you need to look at the word "God". "Gad" was used to refer to Babylonian Syrians or Canaanites as a deity that brought bgood luck and fortune. It was also used to refer to the planet identified Jupiter, and the deity of the Skies and the Sun. If you go to the oldest Indo-Germanic dictionaries " ghodh " referred to a union, i.e., sexual union or mating. In fact it was also used by pagans and the Teutonic language and cultures to refer to any superhuman being good or evil, and idols. "Ghut" means " that which can be invoked". In fact Christians began using the word "God" when King Constantine ordered men up into the mountains to take the Gnostic Christian traditions that were oral in Roman society and the pagan ones and merge them into one written book of laws to prevent a civil war. This is why the pagan Sin Diety Gott and the Gnostic Christian concept of a divine rigin or Yaweh became known as "God" just as references to Jesus as a human born to save the world through his good deeds and show us all we are humans sent from a divine source to heal the world through good deeds became merged with the Pagan concept of a deity, i.e., a superhuman common in many pagan tales. In fact the origin of the word "God" has nothing to do with what we think it means but as a reference to a superhuman or an idol. All versions of the Bible were "inspired by" God or "according to" what someone long after Jesus would have been dead, repeats second, third, fourth hand. As well even in most references to "Adonai" or "Yaweh" its only a specific person who has conversations with this entity and even Moses was told he could not look directly at this entity or he would burn his eyes out. There are no references to "God" showing itself to Jesus or Muhammed in a human form. In most religions including the three one God religions, God is in fact an abstract concept of where everything that contains life was supposed to have riginated. It is a source where creation flows from. If anything its a term for free flowing energy found in all forms of life and which changes to adapt to the environment the energy finds itself in. What we also know is there are numerous versions of the Bible both new and Old Testament and every human who reads the Bible who feels they understand it, think they can go out and explain it to others. What we also know is because of the way the Bible was written it is ambiguous and lends itself to numerous interpretations of each and every sentence. What we also know is when written it contained biases to because of contexts in which its original writers intended to resolve conflicts in the time it was written. However we do not know the names of the original writers and what conflicts of their day or values of their day they would have been influenced by. Clearly someone without scientific knowledge of certain diseases, weather conditions, axioms of biology, physics, chemistry and other sciences, would write differently then someone versed in all of them. Things that may have appeared as miracles for those writers today would be explained probably by scientific explanations. For example Moses spreading blood in the Niles could be explained in an alternative story as his being aware red tide algae was spreading. The plague of locust could simply be explained as Moses sending someone out in the desert to see a cloud of locust coming before the Pharoah would have. Walking across parted seas could have simply been Moses knowing when to order his people across a body of water at low tide or that was very shallow either of which the Egyptians would not have known. Miracles of Jesus can now be explained by science and the possibility he went to India and learned medicine when medicine was developed in India but not yet developed in the Middle East. Jesus clearing the face of lepers could be explained by his understanding you had to cleanse infected skin and exposing infected skin to the sun was good in that it would kill off certain surface bacteria and dry out infected flesh full of fluid. Jesus allegedly being a fisherman would have known about red tide algae and how shell fish could be poisonous and how fish must be eaten immediately and that would seem like a miracle if he knew this and others did not and would eat things and get poisoned. Did he walk on water or simply was walking on rocks just under the water. On and on it goes. Anything any human writes is necessarily subjective to their biases. When a human tells me he speaks to God, what I hear is he believes he speaks to God. I do not doubt people think they know God, can read the Bible and preach God by explaining what they think it means. Me I look at the Bible no differently then I do Aseop's fables or the tales of Isaac Boleshvyk Singer or stories from the Tao writers or parables from the Bhudda. I believe things are written to help us explain basic concepts. I believe they are written as analogies and what the original analogy was meant to show and what we think it shows may not be the same. I do know in Judaism the sentences of the Bible are said to contain numerous meanings not just the surface or litera one and the Talmud was a set f rules created to help debate or argue the never ending possible meanings each sentence had. The idea in Judaism is that a sentence or meaning must constantly be challenged and questioned and updated to match the circumstances of the present tense and bring the meaning to the present from its past context. Laws and rules are defined as forever fluid and changing. In Christianity and Islam there is more likelihood to giving one and only one fixed meaning to each passage. This is strange because Jesus would have spoken and written either Armaic or Hebrew both languages where one word could mean many things depending on its context of use not the word itself. As well Judaism inherited the belief of God being an energy source that gave forth a never ending stream of energy that constantly changes in shape to adapt to the situation it is in. In this concept which comes from the same ancestors as the Hindus, and is similar to Bhuddist and Taoist teachings, if there was an original energy source, it would be everything there was, is or could be and so nothing but everything at the same time a paradox a human mind can not fathom. Humans are said to be a spark of it, or a minute particle of it. It is said this energy created a being to share.and taught that being everything. That beingt hen said, you taught me everything but how to create. So the original being said, if I give you the ability to create, you can never be part of me again. That second being said no problem. So that second being created, then that second being created a third and so on. Each vessel of knowledge goes on to fill up another in a never ending series of sharing creation but that detaches each creator foever as to interfere with its creation would destroy its abilty to create and understand creation. The other story is the thing of things being everything and nothing ejected thousands of pieces of itself in biillions of directions in a big bang so as to never be alone or singular again while still being singular. Call it an act of explosion caused by loneliness or an act of ultimate sharing of its perfection. In any event these types of explanations are not capable of being grasped so God is simply seen as an abstract source for creative energy that flows infinitely creating never ending dimensions of where energy vibrates at different levels to express different meanings by balancing its positive and negative clashes which are the source of its fuel that keep it flowing. The Kabbalah like the ancient Hindu ancestors and Easter disciplinaries sees energy as infinite and ever changing and hwen you try block it, it eventually finds its way to where it has to go despite that block. We are seen as a flow of water in a river. The more free flowing we are the more we create good or positive things and the slower and more stagnant we get, the more evil and negative things we create. Rivers eventually slow down into many curves from a straight line and dry up like our human bodies do. The water is evaporated. However what we know about the water is when it evaporates it goes into clouds where it is expelled as rain to form new rivers. Thus the secret of never ending life or never ending mutation of energy into a new form to express itself. We are said to have chosen to be created so we can learn. The only way we are said to be able to learn is if we are not perfect but imperfect. By expiencing imperfection, i.e., the competing opposites of negative and positive, that clash creates lessons on how to balance the two which then gives us our meaning. So in this sense God has nothing to do with it. We are each our own God given the gift to create ourselves to search for meaning by constantly trying to balance or clashing opposites. Blaming a God is pointless as it is us as an individual who has and will decide ultimately or path and destiny. The God we think of does not interefere for to do that would wipe you out. It instead watches feeling every good and bad thing we feel from a distance, connected in pain and joy but never deliberately in any way that stops us from creating or feeling either. So this means things like the Bible may be a code some use and derive strength from which is good for them or it could be used as a crutch and weapon by others who look for excuses to be evil and hate others. To me a Bible is a possible weapon or healing agent depending on who uses it and the individual choices they ultimately make. Me personally I find the most important and difficult concepts to grasp the ones that seem the most simple.Take for example the basic lesson by doing good we heal the world and help it. No one can see the miracle or size of the good deed's result since its ripple effect is beyond our immediate vision. So they underestimate their capacity to heal and help others. However when we do something bad, we usually can see some immediate horrible effect. So we tend to get stuck up on and over emphasize our ability to do bad things and forget we have equal ability to do good things. I find a lot of people use the Bible to focus on the bad things as it is easy and use it to tell us how evil we are and how God will punish us. I believe that lecture is incomplete and wrongfully explained until it spends equal time explaining what good we do and likewise in reverse. We are not superhuman. We are imperfect but we can create miracles by learning to balance our negative energy or contain it and expressing our positive side. We can never extinguish our negative side, it is us, but it can be balanced and contained not by hiding from it, but by learning not to fear it by welcoming the negative with positive energy,

Check this out at: https://www.businessinsider.com/political-bots-by-governments-around-the-world-2015-12 "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's party has amassed its own bot army, leading up to the country's local elections in August. Researchers say that the Turkish government has coded more than 6,000 bots to promote the party. There are also reports of thousands of fake Twitter accounts. "They are still used to shut down any kind of democratic conversation," Woolley says. When protesters found out, Erdoğan claimed that the activists were actually bots and threatened to ban Twitter in Turkey."

In an interest of gender equality I now present a Turkish man. However Cansu Dere still remains the most beautiful Turk ever. Thank you and carry on. This just in and explains Turkish foreign policy: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2016/01/11/why-are-wild-turkeys-so-aggressive/

No way. When it comes to trying to get their hands on olive oil, all bets are off with Greek people.

No way. After the attempted massacre of the bellybuttons this was not possible.

Hey I would know that guy anywhere ..it's Muhammed. Altai maybe he has a bladder infection.

This just in the belly buttons the Turkish navy were shooting at escaped and are now procreating North of Cyprus Island.

No you manifested the theory, a rather simplistic one that avoids any Iranian being responsible for their own decisions or fate. You depict Iranians as idiots, puppets who are manipulated by outsiders. This is a reflection of your concept of your fellow Iranians to justify your own fundamental Islamic religious views that they need to be led by a Muslim religious clergy council. Yah you bet I have read your past posts supporting the current Iranian regime and Iranian terrorist activities in other countries. Save the pseuto left wing 1970's university theory as your cloak of righteousness. Your sermon is laughable. Yah the Shah was a puppet. How long will you use that as a pretense to justify the current regime and extremist fundamentalist Shiia Islam that kills and tortures your own citizens for questioning it and keeps it locked in the stone age. Who sold all your oil at below market prices to China? Trump was the issue not Iran. In that regard anything now is better than Obama appeasing Iran's fascist clergy council which makes the Shah look like a cuddly teddy bear. Savak, Mukbharat, religious police, what has changed since your divine ones took over?

Hey Z... if one takes the time to study this man they would be surprised what a progressive open minded guy he was and how he was ahead of himself. He is one of my favourite Canadian politicians. He was a classic progressive moderate smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. I love these moderates smack dab in the centre who balance all kinds of issues. He was always ahead of the day. Its too bad his heart disease and connected medical conditions prevented him from going further.

I notice Justin Trudeau did not show up for a debate which should surprise no one. He also has begun engaging in a tactic where no one is allowed to ask him questions and he only will pose for photo ops after giving a short one way statement absent of any position. Clearly his handlers have put him in a bubble to try avoid discussing issues such as Lavalin or deficits. Another tactic he is using and I absolutely call out now in any politician is bringing his children on his campaign when he goes person to person. This is despicable and cowardly. He uses his children in a subliminal message to say he is a good father. It also is designed to discourage people openly questioning him or doing anything confrontational for fear it will upset his child. He has NO business using his children as props but he continues to do so just as he had them stand around as props in India. I appreciate politicians have their smiling spouses stand next to them. Its an ancient prop. Jagmeer Singh who lived 3 doors down from me was the most busy of playboys (and I must say had a bevy of beautiful women visiting him) and hey presto decided to get married only after he became elected head of the NDP. Got it. Purely coincidence. Trudeau no.1 marrying Maggie Sinclair, purely coincidence-an election prop oh come on. I get it. Politicians kiss babies. They pose with their families on election victories but come on. If you do not want people making comments about your family do NOT use them as props during your election campaign as a method to make sure no one challenges you. Trudeau is a coward for using his children and specifically his daughter in Quebec on the campaign trail this way.