scribblet

okay you didn't actually say burn, you said: Please tell me how there is no doubt that Harper would like information removed from our history books - there is absolutely not shred of evidence pointing to this. BTW I did some googling on the people mentioned in another post and didn't find anything, the accusations about stacking the committee with theo-cons are a figment of someone's imagination, or more creative thinking 101.... e.g. Cotter - not a whisper anywhere of him being an evangelical, so, evidence would be appreciated http://www3.telus.net/public/advisory/brentcotter.htm Vic Toews was born in Paraguay and is mennonite, certainly not evangelical, they are committed to nonviolence, nonresistance, and pacifism Barbara Pollock was picked because of her experience ad background in committees, and because is neither a lawyer nor a judge nada on her being evangelical. This is all a waste of time...

I don't know what 'vicious lies' were spread about him then, but I'm sure you consider his essay on eugenics and his thoughts on gays etc. also a 'vicious lie' If Tommy Douglas were alive today and spouting the same hate, he'd be in jail'. I don't know what schools your children or grandchildren attend, but none of mine are being taught any such thing. Harper removing books etc. and secretly stealing our right ? - are you sure your on this planet, where do you come up with this stuff, please provide evidence. My mind doesn't boggle very easily, but it sure is boggling now - this is really in the realm of tin foil hat stuff to put it mildly. I've read all of Dickens, not sure what you mean, please clarify. You won't of course, you never do.

Free Speech? Is that like allowing party members to talk to the media? Maybe, but any party has to have discipline of some kind, its necessary in every organization - loose lips sink ships.

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical. It would have to be a pre-condition, how can they start talking while rockets and bombs are flying - not going to happen.

Its a good thing the Americans don't get their knickers in a knot every time Canadians bash them with impunity. They would have an awful lot of knotted knickers.

Ah but you see, tolerance has now become intolerance, Christophobia and hatred of Christians is now the only acceptable prejudice. I wonder if these insinuations about 'theo-cons' on committees etc. would apply to, say, Muslims or Hindus. What about the new religion of radical atheism, should that cult be allowed on committees or to run for office? Harper might or might not be evangelical, so what, he sure isn't putting forward an 'evangelical agenda' which I assume of one of anti abortion and SSM (SSM debate is over). This continual carping about theo-cons and the CPC appears to be an obsession not rooted in facts. Would the same hold similar views if our PM was, say, Muslim, a JW or a Sikh? Can you imagine the uproar. Much of what I read is simply people trashing someone of a particular belief system then passing their totalitarian impulses off as a 'tolerance'. Tolerance today has become intolerance, where only the secular voices are to be accepted as 'truth' and where anyone who disagrees is to be dragged off to "human rights" tribunals simply for voicing their moral beliefs. Discrimination and intolerance toward Christians and minority religious groups are rising as this secularist minority works to limit the legitimate exercise of religious freedom. This type of intolerant behaviour actually violates the basic human rights of freedom of belief and religion.

I appreciate your posts Rue, you state the facts and opinions clearly. A good question to ask people who demonize Israel is to ask: Is it possible to ever hope to build a society with a culture such as Palestine/Hamas etc. a culture that knows only how to hate, destroy, kill and die with as many innocents around them as possible? n Tel Aviv they called her 'a stinking Jew' http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...363907,00.html The phenomena of rising anti-semitism is not only outside of Israel, it is on the rise in Isrqael,by people who have come from the Soviet Union. Yael Bernovsky Published: 02.12.07, 14:41 / Israel Culture “I was walking my dog in Tel Aviv. When I went to cross the street there was a drunk- looking man standing next to me. My dog got scared and started to bark at him. I apologized and continued walking. I suddenly felt someone push me and I fell on the floor. The drunken man pushed me to the ground, took the leash and started to choke the dog. He was screaming at me “Stinking Zhidovka! (A derogatory name for a Jew in Russian). You Jews destroyed Russia and disturb all the normal people living here”. (Ella Shapira, a Russian immigrant) Anti-Semitism? In Israel? Everyone is very worried about the rise of anti-Semitism around the world, yet recently there have been many headlines about anti-Semitic incidents here in Israel. Swastikas painted onto synagogues, desecration of headstones - these are no longer the legacy of the Jew in exile. The latest serious incident occurred in Bat Yam, where a group of teenagers burned an Israeli flag and mezuzahs.

Not just suicide bombers, there are car bombs, sniping, and the daily rocket fire into Israel, that has to stop too, not to mention that they could be feeding the people with the money they spend on arms. To think that suicide bombings are a societal norm is pretty disturbing to say the least. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...rorAttacks.html here we have it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6372633.stm US and Israel agree boycott plan Hamas, the largest group in the proposed Palestinian unity government, refuses to recognise Israel. Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it," Reuters news agency reports. The quartet has called on the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and give up violence against it. --snip- After arriving in Israel, Ms Rice said it was an important time to advance the vision of a Palestinian state. --snip- Mr Olmert's comments will add to doubts about whether the US will engage with a new Palestinian unity government. Speaking after talks with Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Ms Rice said now was "an important time to talk about how we advance the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and in freedom". But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements

No, it's not that Bush's actions are bad no matter what. Bush's actions are bad because he has consistently made the wrong choices. I would be happy to praise him if he would do something right for once. I also don't think it's necessary to state the obvious--terrorists are cold-blooded murderers and bad--every time I criticize Bush. Impugning that, by criticizing Bush, one is saying that terrorism is good is not only intellectually dishonest, but morally reprehensible as well. Sure, whatever you say - btw I think you mean implying.

Huh - could you rephrase that in English

You make good sense, not a blogger who can't speak without profanity - he's no proof of anything.

Close - but no cigar. Mr. Goodale should make a special apology to former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli for taking the position that the allegations of a leak were an "invention" of the Mounties. Sure they were.

These ads actually reinforce any doubts people might have had about Dion. They are good ads, they do showhis hypocritical side. from the N.Post today: e.g. Afghanistan -back in 2005,Bill Graham, was preparing to send our troops into battle near Kandahar. He warned the House of Commons, "It is clear that it is not a peacekeeping mission" and declared "we have to bring stability to the area if ultimately there will be peace ... so the society can develop." But under Mr. Dion, the Liberal party seems poised to become the party of cut-and-run. Environment, last summer, Mr. Dion told a National Post columnist that Canada should remain a signatory to Kyoto, but could not meet Kyoto emission reduction targets by 2012. Now the Liberals are supporting a Liberal MP's private member's bill on emission reductions that, if it becomes law, would compel the Harper government to do what Mr. Dion couldn't do as environment minister because -- as he knew then and knows now --Canada would take an enormous economic hit. National security: another flip flop Just a few weeks ago the Liberal party supported the extra anti-terror policing powers they approved in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, powers that permit investigative hearings of material witnesses in terror cases and preventative arrest without bail for 72 hours. Now, in a move that suggests they've forgotten all about 9/11, the Liberals declared these measures "draconian," and will no longer support them. Nope, these ads are good and right on message.

Just a 'few' psychos ? These are not my words, but I respect this opinion, it says it better than I can. "My own opinion is that there isn't. Why? Because what would be considered as a "Just Solution" by one side, represents injustice to the other side. For example, many Palestinians want to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state and want it replaced by an Arab Muslim state. They also want the return of all the refugees and their descendants (between 2 to 3 million people) and the expulsion of many if not most Jews. To them, nothing less than this would be a just solution. And even the more moderate Palestinans claim that at a minimum, a just solution would require Israel to allow those 2 to 3 million Palestinians to settle in Israel proper (if they choose to do so or to get them compensation otherwise). Of course, the Jewish/Israeli perspective (mostly) is that such a solution would not be just. Firstly, because allowing 2 to 3 million Arabs to become Israeli citizens would destroy current Israeli society and it would leave Jews without even the small parcel of land that is now Israel and even one homeland while the Arabs would get their 23rd state and ownership of about just about 100% of the middle East on top of their 100% ownership of all of North Africa (Together, the ME and North Africa represents a vast amount of land mass, many times the size of tiny Israel). Secondly, they object to the idea of compensation because: 1. A similar number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries 2. The Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948, did so because of a war that the Arabs/Palestinians initiated. That war and other wars that Israel did not want, resulted in thousands of Israeli/Jewish deaths, injuries and material loss. So that leaves only the pragmatic solution which involves compromise. In other words, each side accepts a solution which gives them less than 100% of what they would ideally would like to get but nevertheless it's a solution that they can hopefully accept for the sake of peace? Does such a solution exist? If not, is it ever likely to come about in the future? Or is the world just kidding itself about peace in the Middle East? A pragmatic solution would be a compromise from both sides - that is something would give both sides less than 100% of what they they want for the sake of peace. Peace at any cost for the Israelis does not mean they will accept genocide as we know the Palestinian position is dedicated to destroying Israel."

I've never in my life heard anyone argue that terrorism is good. Who are you talking to? Maybe you need to make some new friends. Strictly gleaned from discussion groups, where there is no actual argument per se that terrorism is good, it is simply that anything the U.S. or Bush does is bad - no matter what. My argument is no more 'crippled' than one that refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are killing thousands of their own people indiscriminately. As for this thread, there is little difference between this and any of the other countless threads on Iraq. I can't say that I have read any liberal type person or 'left winger' condemn the insurgency or the thousands of innocent Iraqis they are killing. The violence will not stop when the U.S. eventually leaves, it will get worse, until one or the other wins and imposes its own dictatorship. Somehow, there has to be a way, but it will take a lot more troops and a lot more countries getting involved and that won't happen, so maybe some type of peace will only be possible under a theocracy which the majority appear to want anyway.

Always the same argument: any attempt to discredit the illegal war is "Bush or U.S. hating" or "terrorist loving." You aren't even trying to present a credible defence of the violence you support. I don't support violence, but I don't support the Taliban or AQ, I do believe Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, but rehashing that serves no purpose. Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good. Why are you et al ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the insurgents. The discussion should be about how all countries can work together and do something about stopping it - or do you all really, deep down, believe that all Iraqis are too savage and violent, pull out and let em all go at it until the best 'man' wins by killing as many people as they can.

I guess what this really means is that only left-handed court-packing should be allowed : After what, 14 years the Liberals used the courts to put forward their policies and now they are in shock and awe . How awful, a gov't trying to use the courts to reverse their corrupted process.

Just because your on the border, doesn't mean your customers should pay less than those customers 100km North. What is the rationale, besides a subsidy, to charge foreigners less than Canadians on the same good. I believe it is to help increase tourism, most countries allow visitors to reclaim some tax, Britain allows the VAT to be reclaimed. Nothing nefarious about it -

Forum obsessed junkies LOL some more so than others, but really who has time to sit on line waiting for someone to post, then pounce regurgitating the same old same old, could be on line all day. Always the same arguments, the rabid hatred for Bush and the U.S. colours every post and every opinion, it skewers all perception and norms. remember BDS....(Bush derangement syndrome)

What else do you expect from the Star? Maybe we'd rather be like the Taliban, and judging from some posts the Taliban and AQ are preferable.

Why was nothing done to meet these targets? Oh look, I got a credit card, I am wracking up debt and letting the interest build. Now If I wait 10 years and then add up the costs, I will go broke, sorry can't pay? Was that our plan when we signed the treaty? Guess you'll have to ask the Liberals that one, so far we know, no plan, it was all political posturing, besides all this has been said in umpteen other threads. I'm not saying we shouldn't clean up our act, but NO Kyoto and no giving away our cash for Credits to China or elsewhere. We do it at the pace and cost best for Canada.

Sounds like it, after all, we know the U.S. uses its kids as suicide bombers, indiscriminately bombs its own people. (I could go go on) There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings etc. and protecting our security. Personally I don't think the U.S. can win the Iraq war unless they unleash a massive bombing campaign against the whole population with no thought about the consequences, then install a dictatorship. Won't happen, we value life more than they do. What I don't understand is the left wants America to lose the war with the terrorists in Baghdad (and elsewhere) they seem to be followers of the Che Guevara strategy which called on 'revolutionaries' all over the world "to create'two, three, many Vietnams," in order to defeat the American enemy. Why they are indifferent and ignore terrorist atrocities and why do wish to see the U.S. fall? Some are actually rooting for the US dollar to fall and thus its economy. The left appears to admires A.Q. Taliban and other assorted Islamists while overlooking militant Islam's extremely unsocialist practices, you know, Sharia law and such, its treatment of women not to mention persecution of atheists. Wow, what a load of you know what. We don't know that the U.S. wants to eradicate Muslims, at least we know when these kind of statements are made, there is little credibility in much else said from the same source. When people make that kind of malicious statements, it exposes them for what they are; at the very least they self delusional .

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

What is exactly that Kyoto supporters feel is fair about such a massive giveaway of our cash, and why on earth should we support such a ridiculous concept; especially when it the recipients of our cash are increasing their emissions. Did you know that there are numerous pieces of legislation that passed the house and the Senate over the past several years but never received royal assent and were thus never passed into law - it is possible that this bill could also stay in limbo until the next election. This bill is nothing but a political game, too bad someone can't come come up with a brutally honest plan that outlines the full cost of total compliance, showing that it would be economic suicide to pass it. Then let the opposition tell us where the money will come from and which programs will have to cut to do it, and how they'll create new jobs. And no, there are no posts showing that we are close to meeting the targerts.

Goodale owes us an apology, not Harper "He told Canadians that no one in his office or his department was involved in any kind of activity. It was the position of the Liberal party prior to the last election that this should be swept under the carpet."