Moonbox

Oh god. The very idea of Bob Rae or Turdeau running the country revolts me. I'd rather Ignatieff stuck around.

I didn't apologize for anyone. Don't mistake 'violence' with settlement incursion either. They are VERY different things. One act can be reversed. The other can't. and I said that talking must come before that. It's easier to talk than it is to act. If you're not willing to even talk about peace, it's difficult to believe that you're going to be receptive to the next steps. Well if neither side will SAY they want peace then there's really no hope for it at all is there? I'm more optimistic about the side that fights but SAYS it wants to stop fighting than I am about the side who fights and says they want to keep fighting. It's a pretty logical conclusion, regardless of what action backs up the claim. Hey this is something I can almost agree on. The only problem is that the whole time the other side has also continued massive acts and threats of aggression. If it was me there, and the other side promised to attack me regardless of what I did, I'd probably fight dirty myself. Okay now we're talking. How long would this last? Would a freeze on settlements cause violence to halt? For how long? Once the violence starts again, should Israel sit back and take it? Because it's a lot easier to reconcile the idea that one side might want peace because they say they do but they constantly feel threatened. You might see their aggression as response generated by fear or a sense of futility (damned if you do damned if you don't so you might as well). It's impossible to reconcile the claim that the other side wants peace when they act out violently and promise that they'll never want peaceful co-existence with Israel. The very idea is anathema to them. Fair enough. Let's make a deal. We'll promise to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and stop attacking if Israel withdraws from all its settlements. We'll make sure to curb our militants and officially and actually commit to upholding peace as long as Israel leaves the settlements and doesn't come back. How does that sound? Wait. The anti-Israeli side wants NOTHING to with this and have promised as such. It's because they're a farce. No normally these conflicts were ended because both sides eventually decided they were better off giving up on the conflict than they were with continuing. They decided it was beneficial to both to forget the past and move forward amicably because long term fighting accomplished NOTHING. The War of 1812, The USSR vs Nazi Germany, Japan vs China, Japan vs Russia, the US vs Japan, the Napoleonic Wars, the USSR vs Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands, India and Pakistan is something like 10 right there where the closest thing to 'redemption' might have been a rare and hollow apology. They all stopped fighting because they were better off not fighting. We agree on something???

Just don't tell whowhere. He'll probably have a heart attack.

First of all, that's not true and second of all in most of those 'major conflicts' the hostilities in question were actually people shooting each other rather than settlers deciding where and how they want to live outside of VERY questionable legal borders. Ignore the west. Israel and its neighbours need to talk about long term peace. They don't need an impartial West to mediate. There's nothing stopping these two sides from talking. We have to assume that if there's any hope for peace. I will CERTAINLY put more belief in their proposed 'desire' for peace than in the Arab's side refusal for long term peace. I doesn't help lumping things together. All it does is dumb the argument down to unreasonable and unrealistic levels. Also ceasefires have to be NEGOTIATED in the first place. A simple, "I'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at me" is generally all that takes place. I'll agree ceasefires generally come before lasting peace, but I'll absolutely refuse the massive withdrawl of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes as a pre-requisite for a ceasefire. The only person failing to realize anything is you. For any meaningful negotiations for peace, first the DESIRE for it has to be officially expressed. The DESIRE for peace comes first, then the negotiation, then agreements and concessions and THEN peace. You've decided that (whether it's because you don't like Israel or whatever I don't know) that the logical process of peace needs to be flipped over and reversed. First withdrawls and concessions then they can talk and THEN maybe the Arab side will express its desire for peace. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not failing to realize anything. I'd hate to see how you'd do as a negotiatior because you don't seem to have a clue how the process works. "HEY GUYS! STOP FIGHTING SO THAT WE CAN GET DOWN TO NEGOTIATING ABOUT NOT FIGHTING ANYMORE" I understand that maybe you need to put the fists down for a moment or two to get talking, but evacuating hundreds of thousands of settlers is another matter entirely. You've completely refused to acknowledge the logistical and practical consequences in your claim that 'both sides need to stop all hostilities'. Here's an interesting statement. The redemption of all wrongs is a necessary step for peace? Really? Seriously? Take a history lesson. Off the top of my head I could probably name you about 20 wars and conflicts that were ended with no redemption of wrongs offered. No that's what I'm saying about you. You've indicated Israel needs to make IMMENSE and costly steps towards peace, and in return the Arab side doesn't have to offer anything, not even words. One sided indeed. Oh I don't know. Maybe they could negotiate things like, "We'll withdraw if you recognize our right to exist and will agree to stop attacking us." Nothing to difficult about that. The anti-Israeli Arab movement has to commit to the process. They have to indicate they WANT peace and that they are willing to peacefully co-exist with Israel. If they won't indicate they WANT this then you can't meaningfull negotiate it. I do doubt their commitment. I don't think that they believe peace is going to be achieved anytime soon. Given the rhetoric from the other side, I think this a reasonable belief. Israel is a small Jewish island in an Arab sea. The Israelis are resigned to live with this reality and there's nothing they can do about it. They HAVE to co-exist. The Arabs, on the other hand, have convinced themselves that Israel can and will be removed and that this is a goal worthy of conflict. They don't WANT long term peace with Israel and they are SAYING they don't. You can pretend this is only 'one faction', but it is in fact pretty much the entire Middle East (with a few exceptions) that don't and the violence in Israel is supported and encouraged within Palestine, Israel's neighbours and even nations far from Israel's borders. Palestine and neighbouring countries have to indicate they want peace and have to make steps to curb and discourage militants otherwise they are more or less condoning it. None of the above. I'm saying that if one side wants something from the other, they have to offer something in return. Only an idiot would expect Israel to withdraw hundreds of thousands of people in exchange for nothing. It wouldn't improve their situation and the other side is saying it won't. You've decided for them that it would. You're asking Israel to submit to Arab demands in exchange for nothing. Are you making fun of yourself?

You quote it enough to have me regularly mocking you for quoting it all the time. Haha, typical Jdobbin defense. "It's not true unless you spend a ridiculous amount of time sorting through hundreds of my past threads"

Ignatieff hasn't lied to the country? More like he hasn't stuck to a position strong enough or long enough to have it really questioned. This guy's positions are about as substantial as a fart. I certainly can't say Harper's a saint. He leaves a lot of room for the opposition to gain the advantage and put forward a better alternative. Ignatieff, however, seems to have the political convictions and instincts of a wet noodle.

What do you mean make up your mind? Ignatieff hasn't committed really to anything since he took over the Liberal Party. He's the king of flip-flop right now and I don't understand anything about what he wants to do other than that he wants to make EI easier for a lot of deadbeats to take advantage of. Given his history, I don't even think he actually believes in the idea himself.

The Two Ignatieffs I thought this was an interesting read. Up until late February or early March I was actually quite interested in what Ignatieff would try to do with the LPC. From some of his articles and whatnot he struck me as a VERY PRACTICAL man who looked at things realistically rather than from a fluffy 'should/would/it would be nice to' sort of way. I actually respected and believed in his better of evils articles and whatnot. Then after the coalition fizzled out and the CPC proposed the government, we got a real taste of how all over the place he is. There was the budget "There's not enough stimulus/They are spending too much," the asbestos, the fluffy concessions he's demanded, the EI debate (why on Earth would he come up with that as a big issue?) now the election ads that approach Harper-esque levels of cheesiness and inanity. I think Harper is a bit of a tool himself nowadays, but in my mind Ignatieff has erased any perception that I might have had that the Liberals had turned around from Dion stupidity to some semblance of sensibility.

Jdobbin where would you be without the Toronto Star?

I said it was a positive move. It was. Some extra people are going to be getting help. You can criticize if you want that it wasn't enough, but it's not hurting people who lost their jobs due to the recession. The Tories said the proposed Liberal changes were too expensive and if you look at them they're pretty hard to justify. Nobody expected any. Ignatieff agreed to the panel to make it look like he was doing something rather than just backing down quietly like Dion. It was same with the budget. Quarterly 'reviews' were the condition for approving the budget?

Hey it's a positive change. You can complain that it wasn't enough but at least it wasn't TOO much, which was what the Liberals were bringing to the table. Those new to the workforce still could get EI providing they worked the minimum # of hours. If they haven't been able to hold down a job for a long time that's not really the recession's fault. EI was never meant to be long term income. It's a stop-gap for people to find new work after a layoff, not something they can mooch off of consistently like many do right now.

It doesn't matter if you were talking to your employer or not. Like he said, you're paid to go to work and do your job and keep your mouth shut. Section 2 of the Charter doesn't stipulate that you can express your political/racial/religious beliefs on private property within the workplace while you're working and cause disruptions. It says you have the rights to think what you want to think and communicate those freely in public, in groups or in the privacy of your own home. I can't go into a cathedral and loudly rant about how evil I think the Pope is and how everyone should convert to paganism. It's idiotic to think I could. I'd get removed, and no lawyer in the world would support me, nor would the Charter. Saying you 'weren't talking to the guy' is equally stupid seeing as though you're clearly talking loud enough for him to hear and I'm sure you weren't making any attempt to avoid him hearing. Given your history on this board I'm less than certain your discussion with him was tame and I highly doubt this is the first problem you've had with him. Haha, go for it. A corporation can more easily pay lawyer fees than you. Plus, there's no way you'd win. You don't know anything about law. It would be interesting to see what sort of case you'd present to the judge....

Running a national party is a lot different than one focused on one province alone. If Alberta had its own Bloc-style party, I'm certain it's leader would do equally well focusing exclusively on the province. I totally agree. I don't believe Duceppe to be the perfect politician that you present him as. The shit going down in parliament right now is more a reflection of regional diversity in Canada than anything else. Again, I think this is exactly our problem these days. Too many of the parties today are focusing on appeasing specific groups and nobody is focused on the country as a whole. The Bloc, more than anyone, is responsible for Canada's political instability. Turning roughly 1/5 of Canada's seats away from national interests and towards Quebec exclusively makes it almost impossible for anyone to get a majority. If that's the way politics are going to work now, we're better off having no national parties and having province-only parties for every different region. At least then if Quebec wants something done they have to negotiate in good faith with the other parties rather than seeing how much they can get for Quebec alone.

These ads are the exact same garbage that people were making fun of Harper for last election. Ignatieff has just exchanged a sweater and fireplace in the background for a forest. It's just drivel and tripe. Pretty much ALL election ads are garbage meant to influence the dumb and the uninformed.

Yep, sounds like you were being perfectly rational and reasonable... Yep, all your problems are the Liberals and Conservative's fault. Nothing to do with you....

I can't tell if you're joking or not...

You're not understanding what he said. The last few governments hid the fact that EI was used as a tax and not as the 'insurance' it was supposed to originally be.

In which case I really don't pay any taxes at all do I? I net out earning money from the government, don't I? I'm essentially a social leech and the government is paying me. House and car insurance are different in that there are third party interests at stake that require you to be insured. I need house and fire insurance as a term for getting a mortgage. I need car insurance in case I run someone over with my car. I need to pay EI so....that a bunch of people can work for the summer and then collect EI in the fall and winter...great.

An insurance that you cannot opt out of, which by default means it's a tax. My house and car insurance are optional in that I don't have to own a house or car. They are expenses added on top of owning something and they are their to insure my property and myself against liability. EI may provide insurance, but the funding of it is tax. I have no choice in the matter. It provides very little to no benefit to probably a majority of the population and there are a lot of people, myself included, that would prefer not to pay into it, or be eligible for it, if I had the choice. It's a tax.

EI is a tax. Plain and simple.

I've followed whowhere on this forum for awhile. He only posts to tell us how evil immigrants are, how he lost his job to immigrants, how the world is trying to sell him out etc and how none of this is ever his fault. Personally, I have a LOT of anti-immigration sentiments and I think that affirmative action is an abomination. I do believe that minorities exploit the system and it pisses me off to no end. On the other hand, given whowhere's posting history I find it VERY easy to believe he would have said something innappropriate. Look at the thread title. It's par for the course for him.

No worries You're just being trite and oversimplifying (rationalizing in a vacuum again). The distinction of different TYPES of aggression has to be made here. You could reasonably argue that people building homes and communities on their own initiative across borders that were never recognized is not really aggression at all. A useless argument. The people trying to negotiate peace are in a terrible position to do so. A US, British or even Canadian backed peace effort is laughable because we were the people that parachuted the Jews into Israel. Of course we support them because we made them. You can't have a baby in a den of wolves and then not defend it. It's a completely irrelevant argument. No, it's an bad conclusion that logic, history and the real world do not support whatsoever. It's not a starting point. It's the goal. Peace is the goal. That's what we have to assume Israel wants. If you can't offer peace than you're not offering anything and the negotiation process is a waste of time. To say that peace talks and negotiations can't happen before aggression is halted and reversed is stupid because in the real world that's how peace talks and negotiations have been happening for thousands of years. Ceasefires and peace are ALWAYS negotiated while fighting is going on and in the past it often took weeks/months for news of a treaty to arrive in an extended conflict. Utter crap taken from a completely delusional point of view. Your definition of 'aggression' in this conflict is Israeli settlements vs Arab violence. Eliminating one form of 'aggression' would displace hundreds of thousands, cost billions and billions and take months. Eliminating the other form of aggression requires simply not pressing 'launch' buttons. If you want to talk about trust then Israel is in the position to trust less because your proposal has much to lose for them and nothing to lose from the other side. Why should they trust the Arab side would commit to peace, or even peace talks, when the Arabs themselves say they won't? Honestly, there's no point in arguing any further with you. You're not arguing from a practical or rational point of view. There's only ONE way that peace can be achieved in this conflict: Both sides have to want it - PERIOD. They have to indicate they want it and they have to talk about how they are going to achieve a LASTING peace and what would be required to make it happen. If they're not willing to talk about or at least commit to the GOAL of long term peace, the entire process is a sham, which is currently the case. You can cry and bleed out of your eyes about how nasty a conclusion this is, but peace is an impossibility unless both sides are willing to commit to the PROCESS. Right now one side is refusing the process outright and the idea of lasting peace they say is not possible while the other side exists.

He called you a racist because you are. You're a bigoted, ignorant racist and you blame your many problems and failures on minorities. It's never occured to you that you just might be an idiot and your life sucks because you make it suck for yourself, has it?

You've failed, once again, to explain why Israel should have ANY interest in dismantling the settlements. ZERO. None. Go back to my post in page 81 of this thread and let's examine your broken logic and reasoning on the subject shall we?

Canada's revenues were sinking well before the stimulus spending. We went into deficit originally because our tax revenues disappeared. You didn't shoot down anything. A little more thought into the issue might have helped. You can like the idea all you want. We have about a decade of proof to show it doesn't work and just costs crazy amounts of money. What Ignatieff wants to do is garbage. If someone can't show they worked a decent amount before they claim EI they shouldn't get it. If you've been out of work for the better part of a year, that's too bad. EI was not designed as a recession fighting tool. It was designed a short-term solution for hard working people to keep their houses while they look for new jobs. Economic paradigm shifts were never really what it was meant to protect against. Hey good question! Why DO most people in the country qualify for EI after only a few months of work? The solution shouldn't be to offer blanket coverage of absolutely bullshit EI eligibility, but rather turn EI back into what it was meant to be. NOBODY should get EI after a 9 week work year. NOBODY. The presence and intentions of Canada's leader in and of itself is a step in formalizing our claim over the Arctic. Sure, more could be done, but it's more likely to get done under Harper than under Ignatieff. Oh, and nice rant btw.