jefferiah

Well what Imus said was pretty dumb, but nonetheless I cant figure out why so many people make such a big deal out of it. I do not condone racism but I find it strange that people get so up in arms over racist remarks that have nothing to do with them. The guy is fired. End of story. Like I dont understand why we have to have everybody's two cents on this, from Sharon Stone to Jesse Jackson.

As for officiating and rules: I think everybody is pretty sick of all the hooking calls, especially the weak ones which happen so often. And what makes it worse is you have lots of people being called on flimsy hooks while others get away with the same thing. Another thing I am not fond of in the new NHL is the automatic penalty for a puck going over the glass when shot from your own zone. A lot of times this is an accident. It really stings when your team already is shorthanded and they put it over the glass on the opposite zone from inside their own blue line on a clearing attempt. And I think the point for making it to overtime in the regular season and losing is ridiculous. Basically some losers get points and some dont. And another crappy thing is the way they rate the teams in each conference in order to ensure teams from each division make it. You have 4th place teams that have 10 more points than 2nd place teams. If you play in a very crappy division you can make third place easily just by being first in your own division. Anyways.

In response to Geoffrey-----yeah Calgary beating Detroit would be cool too. I would love to see it. Who knows?

Anyone cheering for the Islanders against Buffalo tonight? I will be. I'd love to see another 8th place team oust a 1st place team like last year. Glad Vancouver and Ottawa won last night. I hope they both win their series' in their next games.

As for what I would like to see right now....(Note: not in any way suggesting that any or all of this will happen) Isles upset Buffalo Rangers over Atlanta Ottawa over Pittsburgh San Jose over Nashville Devils over Tampa Vancouver over Dallas Anaheim over Minnesota Calgary over Detroit or possibly Detroit over Calgary (i really dunno....i kind of like the red wings....they got a couple old hab favourites of mine: Matt Schneider and Chris Chelios)

Calgary over Detroit?? I think you guys are smoking something, but it would be cool to see. As for who makes it to the finals, for me the jury is still way way out. Playoffs are so unpredictable, and right now I see a lot of teams that could go the distance. I would love to see Ottawa do it.....but there are a lot of good teams. We got Buffalo, Detroit, The Devils, Vancouver.....all great teams. And what about the Islanders who just squeaked in, could they possibly pull of some big upsets. I wouldnt mind seeing that either. Marty Turco and the Dallas Stars have been playing some good hockey in the Vancouver series. And I can go on and on......naming why all these teams have great chances. So basically....I am just gonna cheer for who I like in each series and see what happens.

Have you asked me? Have you asked Geoffrey? Anyways, Geoffrey is right you are being ridiculous. And your point in making this thread was not to bash this one fellow, else it would not belong on political forums at all. Your point was to make a point about right-wingers. This is the political topic, and Geoffrey responded appropriately be pointing out your silly comparison, a comparison which only helps make the point the Tories are making in the first place. That point is: judges elected by judges are not always the best judges. Harper put a cop on the selection panel. A cop. And this is supposed to be some right wing attempt to muzzle the justice system. Get real.

I am a Conservative and I dont think this, and as far as I know Harper has never said anything of the sort. It's nice of you to use your psychic abilities to read Harper's mind to tell the rest of us what he thinks. If you are referring to the Aids conference that Harper missed (and was subsequently criticized for) you have to remember that he had a prior engagement with the First Nations people's of the North. I suppose had he missed that and went to the Aids conference there would have been just as much criticism from the Liberals. In fact was it not a Liberal who made political use of the conference itself in he speech he made criticizing Harper at that same conference. That is pretty despicable. Since it was an Aids conference not a Liberal rally.

And this is what I mean by the Liberals taking every little thing and turning it into something its not. I think most Canadians are smart enough to see through it as well. The Liberals of course want Harper to mean that "Bains is a terrorist" so they can have something to complain about. Notice how they take every opportunity to blow up a little thing and demand an apology for it. Stronach the Dog. The elaborate conspiracy to hide Lester B Pearson. Seriously, the Liberals are horrible actors but nonetheless they play the game.

Right. He was simply reading a newspaper because QP is just so boring there is nothing else to do. The article just happened to link Mr. Bains' father-in-law to the Air India investigation. Harper had absolutely no intention to imply that Mr. Bains is related to terrorists and that Liberals do not favour extending the clauses in order to protect his father-in-law and because they like terrorists (and pedophiles if I may add). Well I am a Conservative and I didnt interpret it that way, Saturn. Aren't you going a bit overboard there? He wasn't calling Bains a terrorist, but saying that he may have had a special interest in the matter. If I am called for jury duty and it turns out I know (and I am good friends the defendant) the prosecutor might reject me as a jury member. Now I wouldnt say that his belief that I may have a special interest means the prosecutor is saying that I am a criminal. I know this is quite different from the actual situation, but what I am pointing out is that you are saying Harper is calling the man a terrorist when I dont think anybody but the Liberals who made a huge stink over it took it that way at all.

And the funny thing is once again we are hearing the Liberals trying to implicate the Tories in another so- called horrible, despicable, partisan act. It seems that using a backdrop in a press conference is a terrible crime when the backdrop is in front of Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize. The truth is many Liberals have held press conferences in the same room and have had a backdrop in front of it as well. But nonetheless, the Liberals are now accusing the Tories of trying to hide Lester B. Pearson from the world and erase Liberal history (because maybe they are afraid Lester B. Pearson will jump out of the grave and run for PM again and be a huge threat to the Tories, I am not sure). Anyways, it is hilarious to watch them in parliament and their vindictive little faces as they spew out wrath and anger over something so insignificant, but not at all suprising, considering the fuss over Stronach in the fall, and the recent Bains affair.

Just for the record, Harper linked a Liberal MP to a character who is involved in the investigation. He never said Bains had anything to do with Air India. In fact, I dont think any of us know what Harper was going to say since he never got to read his article because the Liberals stamped their feet immediately and started bawling. But at most he was implying that Bains personal interest in the matter could jeopardize the decision over the anti-terrorist affair. That is not slander. He was not accusing anyone of a crime. Anyhow, it seems to be a common practice with Liberals to make noise when other people are talking. I know everybody in politics does this to some degree, but I have never seen anything like the interruptions that come from Liberals. That same day on CBC Newsworld they had a panel with a member from each party to discuss "the worst crime in Canadian history" which Harper committed. Questions were posed by the interviewer and they were all alotted a time frame to respond in. The Conservative, NDP, and Bloc representatives were all considerate enough to speak only during their turns, but whenever a question was posed to the Conservative, the Liberal rep beside him began talking over him. This is one example, but it is very characteristic of the Liberals. Watch debates.

Dry heaves I bet, Saturn, since you are not really puking and are trying your damndest to be offended simply because Harper is a Tory.

I am a Canadian, Catch Me, and I dont find anything offensive about Canadian Blue's comment at all. I think you are digging a little too deeply into his comment and that you are quite conscious of that yourself. In true Liberal fashion you are feigning deep emotional outrage over a few words that could be interpreted in a bad way if you analyze them hard enough. The next step, in keeping with Liberal protocol, is to demand a public apology on behalf of "the people of Canada" from Canadian Blue for offending you and all Canadians.

Spoken like a true politician. How about District Attorney? What JBG says here is true. I am friends with people who I don't agree with on every issue. In fact I don't think anyone ever agrees 100 percent with anyone on everything. It would be pretty hard to keep families together and have relationships if we had to be in total agreement with them on every issue.

People in any field make can make a mistake. Mistakes in some fields may not have any drastic effect on anyone and in some fields a mistake might have a huge effect. But I dont think people should be legally punished for doing their job honestly and making an honest mistake. It is a prosecutor's job to prosecute. So if he happens to be very good as getting prosecutions but is proven wrong on a case years later, you think he should be punished for doing his job?

Bush never threatened the Dixie Chicks as far as I know. Tom Brokaw asked him about the Dixie Chicks and he said "The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They shouldnt have their feelings hurt because some people don't want to buy their records. Freedom is a two-way street." In the Shut Up and Sing film it shows Maines watching this interview and she gets up and says something like "what a dumb F" or something similar. Anyways I think that is pretty baby-ish. I don't think they are doing anything revolutionary at all either.

Speaking of nothing out of line. First off moron shouldnt have been saying anything unless he truly was pissed off,as I am sure he was.But moron is quite adapt at saying stupid things But all that Natalie said on that stage in England was... ""Just so you know, we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas". Hardly a political statement Yeah but did George Bush tell her to shut up and sing. Some crackpot told her to shutup and sing. All George Bush said was they shouldnt have their feelings hurt about losing album sales in response to having the issue put to him.

You're not paying close attention. "Stolen" in this context is a rhetorical description for the imposition of an unwanted state over the objections of the region's inhabitants. BTW, do you have any respones to the original questions of this topic? (See Post #1, above.) The regions inhabitants were Jews as well. And they made up a lesser part of the population but they also got a lesser part of the land. The Jews themselves did not make the land division, they agreed to it. A small section of Palestine for a Jewish homeland. This was too much for the Muslims who have land everywhere. The Jews are fair. Don't attack the Jews. Don't teach kids that Jews are all pigs. Don't bomb them and then cry poor me when they fight back. And there's your answer.

1. Journalist writing about the events of 1948 Mahmud Al-Habbash, a regular writer in the official PA paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, indicates in his column “The Pulse of Life” that the Arabs left Israel in 1948 only after political Arab leaders persuaded them to do so by promising the Arabs a speedy return to their homes in Palestine: “…The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the “Catastrophe” [[the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those “Arkuvian” promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events…” [Term “Arkuvian,” is after Arkuv – a figure from Arab tradition - who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies.”] ” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006] 2. Woman who fled Israel in 1948 “We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the “Catastrophe” [The establishment of Israel and the expulsion from the land in 1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours.” [Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, Woman who fled Israel, Al-Ayyam, May 16, 2006] 3. Son and grandson of those who fled in 1948 An Arab viewer called Palestinian Authority TV and quoted his father and grandfather, complaining that in 1948 the Arab District Officer ordered all Arabs to leave Palestine or be labeled traitors. In response, Arab MK Ibrahim Sarsur, then Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, cursed the leaders who ordered Arabs to leave, thus, acknowledging Israel’s assertion. Statement of son and grandson of man who fled: “Mr. Ibrahim [sarsur]. I address you as a Muslim. My father and grandfather told me that during the “Catastrophe” [establishment of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion from the land], our district officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine and in Majdel [near Ashkelon – Southern Israel] is a traitor, he is a traitor.” Response from Ibrahim Sarsur, Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel: “The one who gave the order forbidding them to stay there bears guilt for this, in this life and the Afterlife throughout history until Resurrection Day.” [PA TV April 30, 1999] 4. Article by senior PA journalist Fuad Abu Higla, then a regular columnist in the official PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, wrote an article before an Arab Summit, which criticized the Arab leaders for a series of failures. One of the failures he cited, in the name of a prisoner, was that an earlier generation of Arab leaders “forced” them to leave Israel in 1948, again placing the blame for the flight on the Arab leaders.

Prove it. I'm loathe to go over this again, but I've dealt with this (or rather, Zionist historian Benny Morris has) many times. There was no nation known as Israel, or people known as Israelis at the time either. Today there is. So, why do you accept that a state (Israel) and anational identity (Israeli) can be created out of whole cloth by imperial decree and historical circumstance, but deny the same to the Palestinians? The importance of there not being a Palestine is not something I am using as an argument in the whole issue. I am using it against the assertion that the land was stolen. The land was not stolen. There is a Palestine and an Israel. But there was no Palestine when the land was supposedly stolen from the "Palestinians".

The dude that said shut up and sing....thats a terrible thing...a death threat...but you have to distinguish between him and people who don't like the Dixie Chicks for whatever reason. That is part of the whole free speech thing the Dixie Chicks are standing up for, which was never violated.

Nobody is all that pissed off. Sure some people went out and burned albums but the Dixie Chicks themselves are playing that up and making it an issue as well. Like all this stuff about how George Bush said they shouldnt get their feelings hurt cuz they lost some sales. Well, I dont think he said anything too out of line there. But the Dixie Chicks played that comment up as if it was part of some governmental George Bush mandated campaign to silence them. The sentence Bush used is a little sloppy, but nonetheless, it was true. Why are they making a big deal out of it themselves? So if you are wondering why this is an issue its not just because of a few people getting pissed off and doing whatever they think is best with their Dixie Chick albums, its cuz the Dixie Chicks are using that to publicize themselves and playing it to the hilt.

They were instructed to leave by the Arab nations who were invading. Ben-Gurion urged them to remain and not to leave, and promised they would not be harmed. Those who remained became full citizens of Israel. Its not the name of the nation itself, but there never was an independent nation of any kind under any name that was there before the Jews began emigrating to that area in the late 1800s. It was under Ottoman Control. There were no Palestinian people. There were people from many places. Native inhabitants and Jordanians and Jews even. And after the Jews began to do work on the land it attracted more arabic peoples to the area that was previously a barren craphole. Read Mark Twain's assessment of the Holy Land when he visited. The Ottoman Empire fell and the land was first divied up by the British and then later they left the job to the UN. The Arabs did not accept the offer which gave the Arabic peoples 75 percent of the land. They declared war on the new nation of Israel. And the refugees left. Estimates of how many refugees there were range from 500 000 to 800 000. They left not because of anything the Jews did. Khaled al-'Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, had this to say in his memoirs: "We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their lands, their homes, their work and their business, and we have caused them to be barren and unemployed though each one of them had been working and qualified in a trade from which he could make a living. In addition, we accustomed them to begging for hand-outs and to suffice with what little the UN organisation would allocate them." In 1949 Israel offered to let 100,000 refugees (whom they had urged not to leave in the first place) back in. This was sort of a peace offering. But the Arab nations declined, because no peace offering from Israel was acceptable to them. This whole thing about the refugees is a big farce. The Arabs dont give a shit about them at all. They have only been used as an excuse to eliminate Israel. In an interview to the Cairo journal "Al-Masri" on 11 October 1949, Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah A-Din said: "In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or, to put it quite clearly -- the intention is the termination of Israel." President Nasser of Egypt "Our aim is to restore the national rights of the Palestinian people, namely to destroy Israel."

yeah but who threatened them? was it george bush, ann coulter? the government didnt threaten them. it was a crackpot or a few crackpots.