Figleaf

Mikedavid, you have an amazing facility with unsupported, unlikely assertions. Not if your stance is wrong. Nonsense. Lots of countries in the area have no intention of wiping anyone out... Egypt, Jordan, Lebannon, Kuwait, Iraq,... It would be better to support real moves toward peace rather than become cheerleaders for Greater Israel. In that they are free to get married. You have no valid claim to define other Canadians' duties or interests for them. Why? because Harper is the 'White' choice? Then you actually don't understand it. This assertion is belied by Israel's history -- E.g. building settlements on someone else's land. What do you think that proves?

And when did you first realize that, jbg?

Thing is, organized religion has a bigger problem than simply being unprovable. The bulk of doctrine is also implausible. If theists were content with claiming existence of a remote inscrutable God, there might be little to debate. But most traditions describe an activist, but essentially schizophrenic, deity. The God described in the Bible doesn't simply seem mysterious -- he acts like a goof. So sensible people ask themselves: Would a 'God' worth worshipping be like that?

Yes it does. If the church uses in for programs targetted mainly for its own parishioners then they are just giving their donations to themselves.

...Too much effort to actually look up the posts? Yes, especially for the likes of you. ?? ?? What 'claim' do I need to back up now? I wasn't aware of any dispute on this.

You called me arrogant and said I had a yellow streak. Well, actually, I said you 'could show' a yellow streak. And I never said anything about arrogant. If you want to retain your credibility, you should keep your accusations in some line with reality.

Seems like a pretty explicit statement of Palestinian land. Remember you questioned my calling it disputed land. Are you trying to get away from your falsehood now? ???? What falsehood? You're making less sense by the moment. Exactly. You brushed it off. Please feel free to post a link to that thread and look like a fool yet again

So when I use question a posters motivations and lack of support for their assertions I am trying to start a fight but when you attack me personally you are just giving your opinion? How does that double-standard work? I'm sorry, I can't parse your first sentence with sufficient confidence to be sure of responding to you accurately. I want to be accurate with you, to spare your feelings as much as possible when I answer your self-involved interrogations.

So many of you will be eating your words when the Liberals sweep back in. Look at the rolling averages ... what you see there, amigos, is momentum. The key stories to watch in the article you posted ask some very good questions. Yet you ignore them and post a line about the Liberals sweeping back in. If I wanted to ignore them, I would have cut them off. Tell me this, if you think those questions are a better basis for commentary than the one I chose, why don't you go ahead and comment on them instead of bitching about my choices? Are you trying to be disagreeable? Since you ask for my opinion: -I have already posted somewhere that the NDP is at great risk of the Liberals recovering more of the progressive vote. -And no, it won't help the Conservatives in the centre, because the Liberals won't have to move left to make the gain.

You made an explicit claim. You referred to *Israeli occumpation of Palestinian land*. The passage you quoted said: "Look, if Israel want peace, why is it building settlements on Palestinians' land?" If you must attempt to vex and bebother me, please at least try to be accurate. Why don't you enlighten us with that substantiation again? Something tells me you'll brush this off because the proof you offered originally was so lacking. No, I'll brush it off because the overwhelming substantiation I provided is available to anyone interested on the relevant thread. If you want to disprove that, please feel free to post a link and look like a fool yet again. You tell us.

You called me *obnoxious* and said I had a *yellow streak* on post 30 of this thread. I'm sorry if you are offended by my opinion. Never admitted badgering you for a day. I responded to several of your posts in a style calculated to bring you to realize how abusive you had previously been.

So many of you will be eating your words when the Liberals sweep back in. Look at the rolling averages ... what you see there, amigos, is momentum.

The poster you are *standing up for* has been suspended. I wasn't standing up for a poster there. I was pointing out that the content of the post was not personally insulting. Your insistence on trying to pick fights with me is bothersome.

PHEW! Good thing I didn't use any. The disputed land is not universally recognized as Palestinian. Or are you saying that Israel does not have a right to exist because of the nature of the original UN decision to grant a Jewish state? If I understand your first sentence there, you are saying that I'm making an implicit claim about who owns the territory, and that claim is unsubstantiated. Your complaint against common knowledge amounts to 'it's not universally recognized'. Pardon me if I don't regard that as bait worth rising to. Your second sentence appears to be a complete non-sequitur, probably inserted to be deliberately annoying. I substantiated that and completely humiliated you in so doing. I'm amazed at what masochistic instinct would make you bring that up. You looked like quite the fool that day. False. The date was November 5th. Here is the text of the PM you sent me ... From "over 20 posts" down to one PM? Your house of cards collapses. I remember our exchange quite well. There were a handful of posts where I intervened to alert you that your zealous pursuit of Gerryhatrick had become abusive and annoying.

Private health care? Anyone with less than $5M in the bank would be an idiot to want to have to rely on private health care.

Stupid flame bait. This kind of garbage is like spam. Try to reach for a slightly higher level of discourse C. Catch89, welcome to the forum. Personal insults such as the response you've received above are ... There was no personal insult there.

Bumf.

Ah ah, that would be picking a fight. Which claims? When? False.

What do you mean "of late"? Certainly not the Bush regime, I hope?

Hey Figleaf, why don't you try being honest in your debating? I always am. Don't mistake taking you up on a fight with picking one. You're one of the most obnoxious posters here, but can quickly show a yellow streak when someone stands up to your nasty tricks.

No. They got nothing from withdrawing, they were already in conflict with Palestinian fighters and that didn't change. The missiles are a response to an illegal occupation, not the the partial withdrawal. The point of course, is that Israel shouldn't have expected anything from withdrawing from Gaza. Since they need to withdraw from all Palestinian territories, half measures won't cut ice. You don't really believe that, do you? I do. I suspect you don't. Anyone can see that. The problem is that some people won't recognize the causes or accept what the remedy must be. Clearly that is not the issue. Arafat recognized Israel and Israel kicked him in the teeth for his trouble. It should be an integral element of any final peace treaty certainly. It should not be a precondition for negotiations.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes. What of it? It doesn't matter what causes their bigotry. Whether it's religion or something else, we can't base choices on it. I'm sorry the concept offends you, but I fully intend to speak about whatever I like. I'm not sure what makes that clear to you, but you are mistaken. I have given him credit for a couple of things. It was irrelevant as a response to an earlier point. Read the context, then you may be able to make an intelligible point about the exchange.

Hey Ricki, why don't you try sticking to issues rather than picking fights?

Partial response. As a sovereign nation Israel has an inherent right to defend themselves. Irrelevant. Yes. The promise to bring it up in Parliament again was inspired by the bigotry of those who demanded it. I name it bigotry because there was no rational public policy basis for objecting to SSM. Therefore, the only explanation for the objection was bigotry. Acquiesing to bigotry by making the promise was either in line with Harper's own views, or it was a cynical abuse of individuals' rights for political gain.

Georgie Porgie, Pudding and Pie, Kissed the Girls and made them cry. When his toys ran out one day. Georgie Porgie had this to say ... Give me men or I will cry. Let me send them out to die.