kraychik

Absolutely serious. Define settlement for me in the context of the the Israel-Arab conflict.

Oh, did another one of your sacred cows just die? I would wager that you couldn't even define a settlement without first doing an internet search. Once you figure it out, get back to me and tell me how it's a cause of conflict.

No. "Government stimulus" is a nonsensical Keynesian term, anyways. In its popular culture usage by economic illiterates (like yourself), it is even more useless. It's debatable if you value dishonesty or stupidity as valid argumentation.

Right, and what does that debt do to the economy? Borrowed money is just deferred taxation. Moreover, it increases the minimum interest payments required to service the existing debt. Food stamps are NOT a stimulus, they constitute a redistribution of wealth program. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the program is borne in one way or another by the very people who benefit from it.

No, they didn't. And the risky mortgages were guaranteed to be covered to compensate the banks in the event that the borrower defaulted. That's the crux of the problem, and that's overregulation any way you slice it. It's obvious that you have no idea what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Well, you're more clued in now that I've explained it to you. You're welcome.

Except settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. You realise that the conflict began before 1967, right? Perhaps you don't.

Right, better to be a bachelor near forty who plays video games, right? From the perspective of society, you probably did it a favour.

And who is crying "racism!"?

Translation - You don't understand the difference between race and culture.

And you're a centrist, moderate, post-partisan, objective person who just wants "to do what works".

I speak for myself and nobody else, Fletch 27 can address his own points. It's quite telling that you're more concerned with what he's said than the actual story, which is widespread Muslim contempt for freedom and speech and expression. But you're fine with that.

I'l trust the dictionary over a socialist Jew-hater like yourself. ji·had/jiˈhäd/ Noun: (among Muslims) A war or struggle against unbelievers. The spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. mus·lim/ˈməzləm/ Noun: A follower of the religion of Islam. Adjective: Of or relating to the Muslims or their religion. Synonyms: noun. moslem - mussulman adjective. mussulman

Leftist "journalist" channels the contempt of freedom of speech and expression from bud and jacee and gets arrested for vandalism (and hopefully assault). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oh8qxtvayU

Because all religions are the same, right? There's a moral equivalence that is shared by all religions? That's your position?

His comments weren't hyperbole, they were gibberish and nonsensical.

Translation: You don't understand what freedom of speech and expression actually entails. This is getting really depressing. EDIT - I want to elaborate on this to put on full display g_bambino's ignorance. He actually thinks that if Canadian immigration/citizenship officials were to screen candidates/applicants on grounds such as: "Are you a Nazi?" "Are you a communist?" "Are you an Islamist?" Or other such questions (I selected blunt and obvious questions to illustrate a point) designed to understand the set of values of these candidates/applicants in order to screen based on such criteria, that somehow we are curbing freedom of speech and expression. In other words, g_bambino doesn't understand the concept of freedom of speech and expression.

Actually, there are plenty of ways to keep such people out of the country. As we've already demonstrated, though, you are unwilling to accept any system that is less than perfect. So you want to burn down the entire system because the best system would still have a few exceptions fall through the cracks.

Where have I called for a restriction on free speech? Answer: Nowhere. I much prefer people express themselves openly so that we know exactly where they're coming from. It's sad how you your mind just manufactures things that I've said, regardless of what I've actually said (let alone implied).

First of all, nobody has suggested screening immigrants on religion per se. What I have stated, specifically, is that values should be taken into consideration. Unsurprisingly, leftists like you and your entourage vehemently oppose this, because you have no core set of principles other than "anything goes". As far as the costs of immigration, contemporary immigration is, on balance, an economic loser for Canada over almost the past two decades. You're just erecting the mythology that somehow immigration in recent years has been some sort of boon for Canada. It hasn't. We're bringing in hundreds of thousands of people who are net liabilities on the system, and who are not integrating into our societies thanks to a ridiculous "multiculturalism" policy. With unemployment where it is, and lax immigration and refugee policies where they are, the entire system should've been shut down years ago. Unfortunately, a large portion of Canadians subscribe to the same mythology you just parroted: that somehow Canada needs immigration for economic purposes. Yeah, we're just in such desperate demand of more Somalian families to work in cleaning services for our government buildings. Baby steps. Jason Kenney has made some changes recently. You lie all the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those attending the demonstration really wanted the man to be murdered/executed. These people are the same folks that say, "I condemn the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but..." Why do you think so many of them were so afraid to talk to Michael Coren? God forbid they actually openly state what most of them are all thinking.

Translation - You refuse to accept that the majority of Canadian media (the largest media outlets) buried this story, despite it being entirely newsworthy and part of a broader pattern of events. There's really no point in continuing with you, you've demonstrated that you're committed to protecting the non-existent integrity of most of Canadian media landscape.

Being a Nazi isn't illegal. Being a communist isn't illegal. Being an Islamist isn't illegal. Having swastikas tattooed on one's forehead isn't illegal. I want all of those people kept OUT of Canada and not given permission to come here, let alone obtain citizenship. Your solution? Keep bringin' 'em in! You're entirely comfortable destroying Canada through irresponsible immigration and multiculturalism policies because you incorrectly believe that our hands are somehow tied. Thank you for displaying the mentality of the left.

Actually, it's a bit of both. Although of course none of the disputed territory is "Arab land", Israel is dismantling all sorts of small settlements on a regular basis, while increasing settlement around Jerusalem, which the so-called "Palestinians" claim belongs to them. Good for Israel, while there's no partner for peace, keep building.

If he's serious about that, that's the core of economic recovery. No, it didn't. In fact the CRA was ramped up during Clinton's tenure. You're already demonstrated that you have no idea what caused the financial decline of 2008. You're literally parroting the nonsense from the Obama reelection campaign of "the same old policies that got us in the mess in the first place". You're also quite childish with your use of "Willard" and "Dubya". Perhaps you think it's cute or endearing, who knows? Considering that conservative approaches to economy policy have a lot to do with deregulation, and you just stated that Bush Jr.'s administration implemented deregulation (it didn't), your above comment is a contradiction. Overregulation is what caused the 2008 financial decline, which I explained to you in detail in an earlier thread. The taxpayer was guaranteeing irresponsible loans that banks were forced to issue to borrowers at the behest of government regulation initiated by Carter.

Tax revenues composed about 65% of American federal spending in 2011. There's a point I want to get to, though. Economic illiterates love to throw around the term "stimulus", thinking that somehow money for programs like food stamps fall from the sky. If it's such a great "stimulus" for the economy (and it is absolutely not, no government program is), why not double it? Triple it? The same ridiculous argument can be advanced that minimum wage regulations constitute a "stimulus" (which actually increase unemployment). Or mileage-efficiency regulations for cars (which make cars more dangerous). Or even rent controls (which diminish housing supply). The government cannot "stimulate" the broader economy with spending and borrowing.