jdobbin

I have not heard any figure like that. You'd have to point it out to me. And even if it was so, no prime minister can ignore Canadian citizens and hope that it will not be an issue in Canada. Show me a western nation that can. You seem to think that if Canadians can't get out of Lebanon, it is their problem. However, it has always been the policy of the Canadian government to assist in removing Canadians from harm's way. You just keep putting up qualifiers as to why these people who want to get out are not real Canadians and are not in any danger. Is your option to do nothing when other countries are removing their own citizens?

True. I would like to see you banned from here.

You'll have to show me that post where you say got carried away and regreted it. You must have backed in that statement because it was likely smothered in a justification. Just pointing out that you are a hypocrite when I see you reporting others to the moderator. You can't run away from your statements and then pretend others are in the wrong on other posts.

No, the policy is Canada will protect Canadian citizens. Isn't that what Israel is doing and which you support? You don't have the same the support for Canada doing it?

And I would be more interested in those Canadians who mosey into Canada and actually don't have a home,employment or even relatives here in Canada............. the lines for welfare form at the left. The Conservatives let a majority of the Lebanese in under Brian Mulroney in the 1980s. Many are Conservative voters with successful businesses. Instead of holidaying in Florida like Mulroney does (and who has a daughter with dual citizenship), they holiday in Lebanon. The Canadian government didn't have Lebanon listed as "Do not go" country on their Foreign Affairs website because the danger there to international visitors was deemed "low." So I doubt that these Lebanese are in need of jobs.

As I said before, Harper has indicated that Canada is not neutral in this. He supports Israel. However, as prime minister he also is sworn to protect Canadian citizens. Who is to say who or what areas will be safe in the next days or weeks? There are several parties involved now. The whole country could be dangerous. And it could be more dangerous for someone holding western citizenship. I don't seriously think that the "free trip" to Canada is a selling point for those who would leave on their own if there was an open port or airport.

In your responses, you were making personal attacks that clearly crossed lines. Why don't you admit it, apologize and (if you aren't banned anyways by the moderator), move on?

My daughter and my cousins daughter have now had to have bone marrow transplants, until this happens in your family one does not have the right to deny this easier procedure. Hope your family members are okay. It is a quite painful procedure but the outcomes are often worth it.

It's rather doubtful. I have no idea what her real powers are but I don't think if she did anything other than act as a figurehead, it would be the end of the Royal Family.

You're tendency to personal attacks that cross lines is one of your traits.

Why would someone want to leave with one small suitcase, wait for hours for a ship that might not be able to take them, head to Cyprus, wait for a plane that might be days in coming and land in a city that might not be where they actually live in Canada? And you're right. Some people might not feel the need to leave at the moment. However, since Harper has given Israel carte blanche to deal with Lebanon as it sees fit, he also has to ensure the safety of Canadians if they see fit to leave.

Bush could live in Buckingham Policy if he married Charles in a same sex marriage. Then, together, he and Charles could do all those things. And Elizabeth could roll over in her grave.

Bush vetoed the bill tonight. In several polls taken in the last weeks, a majority of American supported stem cell research. One of the people who support it is Nancy Reagan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/

What's your thoughts on it?

Statistics Canada has reported that 75% of the Lebanese in Canada are Christian. A number of newspapers including the Globe and Mail have said that many Lebanese have excellent relations with Jewish communities in Canada and many have blamed Hezbollah for engaging Israel in a provactive action. Many in the Lebanese communties voted Conservative in the last election. Many Lebanese Canadians support Harper. They are disappointed that they couldn't get in touch with their Canadian embassy or government for days. And they are disppointed that the Canadian government hasn't done more to ensure their safety. When Harper gave Israel carte blanche to respond to Lebanon, he should have thought about how to get Canadians out of the country first.

Where on Earth did you hear they were just coming back to Canada on the government's dime because they are 65?

It was his responses that are in violation of these boards. You can check back on the boards to see what those are.

I could not make heads of tails of your previous post about corrupt government because you said there was no legal way to deal with it. ? Elections are not a way to deal with it? Who is being illogical here? And who isn't offering alternative legal suggestions? As for insults flying around, I'm taking responisbility for my part. I'm just confused by your post as to what legal and responsible means there are to provide a system that reflects your values.

I must have missed the part where you showed regret for your behavior. And your analogies are just as inflammatory as ever. At any rate, it's academic. The moderator will do what he think is best for the boards. If he doesn't this time, I'm sure there'll be others where you'll get out of control again.

If you feel like this is uncalled for, make your case to the moderator. But don't pretend that it is within the board rules to respond as you do.

So three days after the exchange, after you had apologised and the insults stopped, you're going to nobly report it to Greg? Why do I suspect you're bored here, having arrived not much over a week ago, and not finding yourself especially comfortable with people who disagree with you, and are more than willing to get suspended if you can get someone else suspended with you? I have no problems with people who disagree with me. I apologized for my part in this and was waiting to see if it would diffuse somewhat from infammatory remarks. But you have no apologies and no regrets. And if this was an isolated incident, I'd probably forget about it. But I've observed a few other threads and have seen what amounts to standard operating procedure for you. You've been warned by others to settle down and granted, you've had it out with a few people but the common factor in a lot of this is you. So, as I said, I will take my lumps if that is what is decided by the moderator. But certainly, you will too. Your remarks were inexcusable and you continue to justify them.

It is being reported that Tim Sale, an NDP cabinet minister won't stand for re-election. There are rumours of a cabinet shuffle coming.

The comments which sent you into self-righteous fits were, I believe, about the number of immigrants making use of social services? You didn't ask for evidence. You asked for government provided statistics, which you apparently believed were the only acceptable evidence that immigrants abused social services. What I said was I was not going to waste two hours or more trying to sift through government web sites to find statistics when I'm not even sure how or in what way they're kept. Especially since the word "immigration" in a search engine will lead to zillions of responses. But being against immigration for any reason other than a presumed genetic superiority to immigrants, or a particular immigrant group, is not racist. Bob Rae once complained to the federal government about the tremendous cost to Ontario of providing social services to immigrants and refugees, and nobody called him a racist. We bring in 250,000 odd immigrants and refugees a year and no one has been able to offer up a good reason for this beyond feel-good emotional bullshit. You know which comments you said where inflammatory. Go back and look them up yourself. You were not aruging against the policy but against the people. And those were the remarks that pushed it right into racist type statements. But whatever. Let the moderator decide if your reponse to this was the wisest course. I'll take my lumps. You can take yours.

I have reported the exchange to the moderator. I'll take my reponsibility for my remarks. You can take yours.

Your comments were based on racism. I went overboard and have apologized for that but I certainly have never called anyone a pedophile. But please don't act innocent and say that your remarks were not based on race. They were inflammatory and when I asked for some evidence to support your claims, you said you couldn't find any.