Figleaf

I read that link. It's far better than the Syrians' use of huge bombs... . If you like, but my point remains the same, and now proven. It is perfectly correct for Chak to say that Israel has been involved in massacres.

Poll-uters should pay, not me! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can you provide more information about that please?

Not to you.

When most of the great holy books of our civilisations were written, the great masses of people were illiterate, ignorant, and credulous. It was simple to pile a book together, label it superior, and market it. Now, in our relatively more informed, arguably less credulous society it is more difficult to create a book of all truth that is convincing. The old ones survive because of inertia and the supposed authority of age and tradition, but new ones can't get a foothold.

That wasn't Mulroney that was Kim Campbell, John Tory, Allan Gregg and the whole PC brain trust that f*cked up the 1993 campaign. Bluthster, even a modicom of research would have helped you avoid looking so uninformed on this subject. The Reform party was created in 1987. Such a comedian!!!

I'd hardly blame Mulroney on that one. Mulroney elected MP's in Calgary, the Liberals haven't since the 60's. He also ended Trudeau's rape of our economy and companies. The history of the founding of the Reform party is well known. While resentments in the west existed under former governments, it's quite clear that the straw that broke the camels back was the Mulroney government. Don't take my word for it -- research. And it's quite a stretch to suggest Trudeau was raping our companies. If anything his foreign investment review agency was preventing the rape of our companies (though maybe not in the most economically advantageous ways).

One example, just for Bluth: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

Attacks whose target is of no military value and whose intended victims are innocent civilians. And yours? I might go with something more like: execution of violence against non-military targets with the intent of sowing fear or social disruption.

Typical. Can't defend the indefensible so you play games. I have no need to defend the indefensible. I just didn't understand what you were saying. WTF are you talking about? Do you really mean to tell me have never seen reports of massacres resulting from IDF engagements in Canadian newspapers? Are you just trying to jerk me around here? You said 'anti-Israel'. I just want to know what you mean by that. Why that's hard for you, I can't imagine (well, maybe I can, but I can't say it). Anyway, if you won't explain what you mean by a term, there's no sensible way to discuss it and your comment can't be taken seriously.

Take time to tie the two together and then I'll... What?

Oh come on. Israelis don't blow up pizza parlors. So, what is your definition of terrorism?

I can't speak for leftists, but in my view bigotry is the only explanation available that covers the anti-homosexual sentiments evident on this thread. I don't say that lightly. When a poster expresses a negative view of homosexuality or of equal rights for homosexuals, and then when asked the basis for of their view or for a specification of the hazards they apprehend, they fail or refuse to give this rationale, one is left to speculate on the reasons for it. Edit: I'm saying if you have no good reason for opposing someone, you probably have a bad reason.

Yeah, they're crap. They have the 'hue' maybe, but all that means is they've sprayed a fluroescent bulb with brown. The light is dim, beige, and flourescent -- nothing at all like an incandescent light. If that's true, the legislation against incandesenct bulbs is pointless and unnecessary.

Indeed! So you can't provide a manner to define 'massacre' or 'savagery'? I'll be happy to accept and work with the definition of either from any major English dictionary. I'll say again, occassional massacres arising in IDF engagements are reported in regular Canadian and international news outlets. That's a fact. Now, will you define what you meant by 'anti-Israel'? Having a candidate who expressed a factual view of a situation is not the same as the party siding with one side or the other. Your equation of these to speaks poorly for either your logic or attention to fairness.

It's not at all obvious. I took the dating mechanism out, and aside from those who are familiar with certain triggers of epochal English, or alternatively history, there is no way to date it...and even those are murky, given the tendency of most translations to hearken from the same period. Of course, being sweal, you got it wrong anyway, since scriblett got it right. Easy bigdog, did you not notice the ? P.S. "sweal: v. t. 1. To singe; to scorch; to swale; as, to sweal a pig by singeing off the hair" Are you calling me a flamer? That's rich!

Figleaf, you are proving the point. Chak, a Liberal candidate, is clearly anti-Israel. You aren't answering the question I see. What is wrong with what was said. The news in Canada has carried numerous stories of massacres that have resulted from Israeli Defence Force engagements. I'm not making it up. If it's made up, then the newspapers are making it up. So please be specific: how is what Chak wrote so wrong. Okay, let's not play semantics. You tell me your definition of "anti-Israel". Indeed!

It is concerning that whether someone has criticised the government of Israel or not is such an important matter in a Canadian election. Personally, I'd prefer to have Canadian elections focus on Canadian issues, not on the convolutions of a foreign squable half way around the world.

Let's look at the rest of the story-- So that settles that part of the issue, then. He's innocent and this can't be held against him. If people who are exonerated can't run, then Stockwell Day would have to be out to, since his pet police force recently (surprise surprise) exonerated him of corruption. If that's the worst thing his letter said, what's the problem? "Massacres" and "savagery" are factual, provable statements. "Terrorism" is a very flexible term and a matter of opinion. Most countries in the world have been 'accused' of 'terrrorism' by someone at some time. I fail to see why this opinion should disqualify anyone from being a candidate for Parliament. He sounds like a qualified candidate who has won the nomination fair and square. Let the people decide if they want him for MP.

Mulroney was a disaster for Canada. Inept doesn't begin to describe the destructiveness of Mulroney. He: -politicized the RCMP and the civil service; -rejuvenated Quebec separatism; -alienated the west into creating the Reform party; and -doubled the deficit, to name but a few of his messes. And then there were his annoying personal failings, like thinking far far too much of himself.

I think you have just articulated a perfect description of the useless voter. They are full if demands, ignorance, and a childish notion that things can simply be conjured for them out of thin air.

No, what I'm saying is that he's tougher and gamer than he looks. Underestimate him at your peril. Harper spent millions on a smear campaign because he knows this.

Yes, and you should all join my secret Fight Club army! See above!

It's fairly obvious if you think about it.

Obviously there were constraints on the flexibility of the real intel to be warped into Bushintel. But we know that SOME of the intel was deliberately fabricated. We can't know how much or how little, so the whole pool is tainted. America is a liberal democracy, even some rightwingers are 'liberal' in that sense. Anyway, the USSC recently partially overturned Roe v. Wade. Not exactly. I think there was election gerrymandering and structural tampering in Florida, driven by its own politics, well before Dubya was ever nominated. This work did help Dubya in 2000, and on top of that, government officials in Florida at the time of the election worked agressively, possibly criminally, in favor of the Republican ticket. If Gore had won Tennessee none of that would have mattered. When the sh!t did hit the fan in Florida, both parties really did nothing unexpected -- they fought to win. Did the Bush campaign have a pre-existing deal or conspiracy in place with the Court? Not very plausible. Did they cut a deal after the Florida results became pivotal. Possibly, but not necessarily. We do know, however, the USSC split exactly on party lines, and the decision the majority rendered: -used court power to appoint a president of the same party as each of the majority judges; -halted and forbade determination of voter preferences in Florida; -used the same reason to both intervene and not intervene in the Florida election process; -was not signed by the judges (first time in history); and -elevated the less popular candidate. Here is an interesting pov from one of America's most famous prosecutors: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

Is there a secret Democrat army being trained somewhere for a coup? The best made-to-order intelligence he could commission at the time, you mean. The stolen election of 2000 in particular should enrage anyone who cares about democracy in America.