marcinmoka

Mr. A = Palestinian radicals Mr. B = Israeli citizens

If you're against gay marriage....simple......don't get one! No gays have ever tried to restrict who I marry, why should I do the same to them?

While slightly warming up to Dion (he's intelligent, though as many have already pointed out, lacks the leadership image), but I still regret Ignatieff not being elected. They need to get rid of the delegate system of elections. Horrible.

And how is this wrong?

Is Bill Gates overpaid? Hell no. He took a risk starting the company, and is justified, besides, his wealth was linked to his company's stock performance. And though it has nothing to do with this debate, from a moral standpoint, given his and Buffet's actions, they show even more how success dictated their wealth, not just unjustified greed. Was Nardelli of Home Depot fame overpaid? ($220 million) Yes, not because it was a ridiculously high paycheck in itself, but because Home Depot wasn't doing too hot. Sure, you can blame the slowing down of the housing market, but even before. His exit check should've been pegged to overall performance, and not some figure that's hammered out while the company is doing well. But on the plus side, I think that recent controversy also persuaded shareholders to strive in having more say in how their exec's are compensated. Sadly, we've in a world were too many view the CEO as some superstar (though in the past two years, many have crashed and burned), but eventually will realize that maybe the company performance is equally based on the actions of many other individuals, including mid and high ranking managers as well who's compensation is not nearly as mobile as those at the top. In this case, I believe the market will solve such issues, it just takes a bit of time.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/mapspub/maps/803130.jpg

Religious? Could you explain? Takes me back to a Fatwa carrying author, but I believe that religion is a facade used by the elite in their quest for power. Unfortunately, many "weaker" individuals are rightly duped into compliance, believing their actions will carry out a religious will, when in fact it is no more than political ploy. And this exists amongst ALL sects. Money = Power = Survival......and all this makes the world go around.

There are about 350,000 Jews in Canada but the Muslim population is almost twice that. But most are not Palestinians, yet they still side more with the Palestinians than the Chechen's. We also have about 200,000 Russians, and 1.2 million Chinese, yet they rarely try to bring our attention to any of their causes, i.e Muslim - Russian , or Muslim - Chinese animosity? I will give you that in Canada and the US, the bickering between the two groups does SIGNIFICANTLY raise their profiles, but why is it THE cause celebre in the wider Muslim world, where many of these places are relatively devoid of Jews?

Sorry.....if you really want, I can translate the French portion....but when it comes to the Hebrew, you're outta luck. I don't think they're tryin' to be hip hop, at least no more than Beck considers himself a rapper...I like it because it's a playful take on what should be a very very morbid and gloomy topic. But yeah....the moment I find the full lyrics....I'll post them.

I like this, when Israel's official entry for the Eurovision song contest is about nuclear annhilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_h_rLKTLvs In english, french and hebrew.

You or I may not gloss over it, but count the proportion of posts dealing with Chechnya or Sudan compared to threads/mentions of Israel on this, or any other forum, or even major news agency dealing , compared to any other major conflict. Israel is guilty at times and one would be a fool to deny it, but why does no other nations receive so much criticism.

While your second point dealt with "reactions", the opening point you made did not, there's a big, big difference between saying: "you're comparing Iraq killings", and "you're comparing reactions to Iraq killings". Furthermore, the article dealt with not just Iraq, but also - Darfur - Chechnya - Afghanistan all of which are far, far from "two equal sides fighting to seize control". Israel is a tiny nation, with a legitimate right to be paranoid. Everyone hates them. Myata, no one will say Israel is completely innocent. ( But it IS EASY TO ARGUE the Jews HAVE ALWAYS been victims of unwarranted and unprovoked assaults. You may of heard of a little chapter in the history books known as WWII. ) THE QUESTION I ASK IS THAT WHY DOES EVERYONE GLOSS OVER OTHER EVENTS, SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS IN CHECHNYA, OR THE SALUGHTERS TAKING PLACE IN EAST AFRICA, and focus primarily on a conflict which causes not nearly as many casualties BUT MANAGES TO INCLUDE THE ETERNAL SCAPEGOAT, the JEWS?

Posted by White Doors in a previous post:

No.....not really. The article was comparing global REACTIONS to the killings. Sometimes it's nice to read the actual text rather than just skimming the key words.

I don't think any person will ignore that are benefits, but that's NOT THE POINT nor is that what I asked for. I'm asking if the benefits outweigh the costs? Everything we do SHOULD BE a cost/benefit analysis. You attack others (rightly so, I'll admit) for ONLY LOOKING AT COSTS, whereas you are NO BETTER IF ALL YOU LOOK AT IS BENEFIT and IGNORE THE COSTS. P.S. The site doesn't work.

(Translated from French, printed in "Le Figaro"...a very good paper if you ask me) By Andre Glucksmann The outrage of so many outraged people outrages me. On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights. The daily terrorist attacks on civilians in Baghdad, killing 50 people or more, are checked off in reports under the heading of miscellaneous, while the bomb that took 28 lives in Qana is denounced as a crime against humanity. Only a few intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy or Magdi Allam, chief editor of the Corriere della Sera, find this surprising. Why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don't count - whether in the eyes of Muslim authorities or viewed through the bad conscience of the west? This conclusion has its weak spots, because if the Russian Army - Christian, and blessed by their popes - razes the capital of Chechnian Muslims (Grosny, with 400,000 residents) killing tens of thousands of children in the process, this doesn't count either. The Security Council does not hold meeting after meeting, and the Organization of Islamic States piously averts its eyes. From that we may conclude that the world is appalled only when a Muslim is killed by Israelis. Should we thus presume that the public at large implicitly endorses the ideas that Ahmadinedjad shouts at the top of his lungs? And yet so many of those sceptics who display consternation over bombings in Lebanon seem shocked if you suspect them of anti-Semitism. I want to trust them. We don't want to imagine that the entire planet is mired in anti-Jewish paranoia! But then the matter becomes even more puzzling. What is the source of this hemiplegia? Why is the world frightened by Israeli bombs alone? Perhaps the reason why the deaths in Lebanon are so disproportionately shocking as compared with the starving people of Darfur and the ruins of Chechnya is that they are seen as a surrealistic geopolitical signal. Anyone who follows the news in Gaza or Qana does not simply count the dead on a particularly violent day - rather, the coffins of these victims encircle the aura of a fatal promise - a promise that the hundreds of thousands of corpses from Africa and the Caucasus have no chance of approaching. Haven't legions of experts - for decades now - identified the Mideast conflict as the centre of the world's chaos and the key to its pacification? Is there any diplomat who does not repeat ad nauseum the formula about the gates to a hell of future wars versus the gates to world harmony, all of which open in Jerusalem? A never-changing script haunts 21st century minds. The script maintains that everything is decided on the banks of the Jordan. In its most grim version, that means: As long as four million Israelis and as many Palestinians are facing off against one another, 300 million Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims are condemned to live in hate, bloody slaughter and desperation. And the rosier version: We just need peace in Jerusalem to put out the fires in Tehran, Karachi, Khartoum and Baghdad and to set the course for universal harmony. Have our sages gone crazy? Do they really believe that sans Israeli-Palestinian conflict nothing bad would have happened, neither the deadly Khomeini Revolution, nor the bloody Baathist dictatorships in Syria and Iraq, nor the decade of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, nor the Taliban in Afghanistan, nor the angry warriors of God the world over? The sad, reverse hypothesis is seldom posed, but it is actually much more likely: Every truce along the Jordan is fleeting, as long as the palaces and streets, the majority of the intelligentsia and the officials of the Muslim world hang on to their anti-western passion. Globalization (which entails the dismantling of economic barriers but more importantly all social and mental barriers) necessarily leads to tough and terrible defensive reactions. The development of anti-western ideologies in Germany, from Fichte to Hitler, does not depend on the foundation of the Zionist state. The anti-western affect is constantly renewed in Russia, from the tsars to Stalin and on up through Putin. And it would be naive to presume that the Iranian lust for power, in search of its Khomeinistic force de frappe, uses the "Jewish question" as anything more than a pretence for a universal Jihad. Does anyone think that the green subversion, after erasing Israel from the map, will mark its success by laying down its weapons? A hypocritical geopolitics, which ordains the Mideast as a basic pillar of the world order, has become the religion of the European Union, the belief of the unbelievers and of the doubters of the west. Post-modern thinkers have no justification in proclaiming the end of all ideologies. In fact, we are swimming in an ideological illusion and have secretly exchanged our deceptive hopes for a final battle with a fearful incantation conjuring a catastrophe to end all catastrophes, that is just as absolute. While our head swarms with surrealistic ghosts, our heart perceives, in every photo from Lebanon, the death of humankind. Jerusalem is only the centre of the world because it is considered the centre of the end of the world. Our illusions feed on apocalyptic notions. And so every Mideast conflict is like a rehearsal for the end of days. Just look at the undefinable war of cultures, if you need convincing. And anyone taking that position is resigned to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The years of bombing of Israeli cities by the rockets of the Party of God become a foretaste of the Iranian godfather's promised destruction. And so, as Clausewitz already noted with irony, it is not the aggressor who starts the war. Instead it is he who steps in to stop the aggression. So Israel is guilty. Guilty of a collectively fomented fantasy of the end of days. From surrealistic geopolitics to delusion - just one step.

Small and large business perhpas - farms - not likely. They are commodity based and therefore price takers not price setters. Borg Touche. I structured my sentance wrong. I apologize.

What good are ALL the other elements of the Charter if you cannot ensure the fundamental security of our nation? As scribblet and the NP pointed out, it's not the spirit of the Security Certificates which were shut down, but just their current presentation. They will be here to stay, just slightly amended to ensure OUR safety.

Yep. Farms, small and large business' all will raise their prices to pay for these increases.

Decorum...perhaps,but for overall politics, I disagree. This was a tactical experiment, one which may very well backfire. But they have elections to think about, and they do not want to blow the relatively good opinion our nation holds of them for the time being. They have bright strategists, and WILL become more moderate, even if not by intention, but just as a means to ensure future power. Personally, I like the concept of a Liberal-Conservative switch every few years. It's a good way to rejuvinate the parties and preventing them from becoming too smug, since elections let them gauge how Canadians honestly feel.

Then you ask me about HOW LONG boreal would take to grow? You postulate about long term problems but complain about LONG TERM benefits. That jeopardy tune must be play and playing and playing in your contradictory little head. It is a FACT that the earth, when [photographed from space, is in fact GREENER now as a result of increased carbon in the atmosphere. And on top of all of this, you have (in typical lefty fashion) steered this debate to one about the possible problems of global warming, and completely ignored the benefits. This isn't very scientific behavior at al my friend....(music still playing). Are you blind? Quoting me to make it seems as if it's good for the environment? It was in this sentance: to build a conceptual model of response to warming, where warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6, You suffer from EXTREME selective reading. But thanks for calling me a lefty. It's a first I must admit. Since you didn't even bother reading the post, the result will TURN INTO A CHAIN REACTION More Carbon = More warming = More Carbon and so forth. You seem to only think as if everything was independant of each other, i.e melting ice will both give us beautiful trees and increased water levels....and everyone will make smores and sing koombaya. And if theres too much water....we'll just build a wall. A big wall. FIND ME A RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC STUDY STATING LONG TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AS OUTWEIGHING THE COSTS. *Not a heavily edited 10 sentance resume put forth by oil firms, but an actual, independant SCIENTIFIC study.

I personally found the adds rather tasteless. I expected a bit more decorum. I respect the Conservatives on their fiscal policy, but this has made me more skeptical. It's showboating, and sadly, I think this is going to start a trend. I fear the day when in two decades, political ads, rather than showcasing their parties platform have 70's sci - fi / thriller music playing in the background while showing unflattering pics of the opposition and accusing them of killing kittens or snorting cristyl meth. SAVE POLITICAL DECORUM (or at least whats left of it)

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want to! But it doesn't change the principles of chemistry. By the way, HOW LONG do you think that Boreal Forests take to grow to significant levels? ( I still got the Jeopardy music going)

Yes. But warmer temperatures would REDUCE the seaways. Think about it. Maybe you and Newbie have the same knowledge of Geography, but water runs FROM the great lakes TO the oceans. A) More trees = more water absorption = Less flow into the great lakes. Warmer temperature = Increased evaporation. C) The Tundra is also one of the major carbon sinks. That means it takes in more oxygen than it releases. The plants there, due to to long periods of cool, just freeze and do not decompose but are stored in the permafrost. Can you guess what happens once it melts? *Jeopardy Music* But than again, what does science know. The CATO institute knows best!

Gee, then maybe sticking a whole shitload of displaced Europeans right under their noses wasn't the hottest idea. Right. Because the Jews ORIGINALLY hail from Europe! I guess the name "Jerusalem" was really just a perversion of "Jielenia Gora" in Poland and this was somehow lost in translation.