Moonbox

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.

Could be a lot of things.

Depends on what the money was actually spent on. I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Yeah the CPC is the old Reform. It's not like the PC party swallowed up the reform, it was the other way around.

Probably explains why you're so keen on provincial welfare spending....

Our principles?

This is a bunch of people choosing to live in back-asswards communities out in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure if people need to get out of town the occasional bus could come grab them, but sending a giant bus regularly to go pick up a handful of people is nothing but a waste of money unless there is enoug people to pay for them. Go drive up there yourself to get them if you feel so strongly about them. They NEED you.

No comment, no comment - YES. Now work on your critical/objective thinking. There are a myriad of problems with pulling out immediately from Afghanistan. You can chew on that by yourself though because that gets us way off topic.

A lot of smart people appreciated his no-bullshit approach to things. I'd vote for him again and so would a lot of people.

Now work on your punctuation and the people here might actually read your posts. As it stands, your posts are painful to read and for every word a normal person would post you string it out into 5.

Yes, his successor, who happened to be a dried-up old man who disagreed with many of Harris and Flaherty's policies. Ernie Eves was a gaff machine and things like Walkerton, the 2003 blackout and the idiotic decision to announce a budget at the corportate headquarters of Magna instead of in the legislature all blew up in his face. Dalton McGuinty ran against a political buffoon in 2003 and in the 2007 election, polls indicated he'd lose until the genius PC leader John Tory decided to introduce the mind-boggling proposal of funding faith-based schools. You can imagine what the prospects of Jewish-only, Hindu-only and Muslim-only schools did for John Tory's chances in the election. It almost seemed he was trying to lose. It's absolutely fascinating, however, to hear how much kids in Manitoba know about our politics here in Ontario.... Let's just see how old Dalton does in the next Ontario election okay?

Oleg look into Ignatieff's history and writings, as well as the history of the LPC in this matter, before you make your decision. Once again, however, you've managed a giant block of text full of useless natterings in which you wrote a lot but said very little.

Yeah...that's why he was re-elected right? Somehow you seem to think that money for government spending comes from thin air. Mike Harris knew better and brought us back from careening public deficits. Mike Harris is hated by people who depend on public spending. It's no surprise that welfare recipients, unemployed students or people in general who barely or never work for a living didn't like him. He was elected and re-elected by millions, however, and I don't think he could care less about what children in Manibota thought about him.

First off, you misquoted and have it that Jdobbin said all of this instead of me. I'm probably one of the last people he'd want to quote. Anyways.... The distinction must be made because we're not rationalizing in a vacuum. Your argument is rational only so long as you ignore the practical consequences of what you are suggesting. You're saying that the ONLY way that even basic dialogue gets established is that Israel evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers and dismantle entire communities at ENORMOUS cost for absolutely no tangible or likely benefit to themselves. This is absolutely false. Negotiations ALWAYS come first before violence and aggression is stopped. The basic and very first step is that both sides agree to talk. There is NOTHING that prevents both sides from talking while 'aggression' is committed. To suggest as much is foolishness, not logic. Okay let's get right back to the principles of 'logic' shall we? The overall goal of the peace process should be the end of aggression and violence correct? You're saying that the peace process and dialogue cannot commence until the conflict is deescalated and the aggression stops right? Follow this thought through and the only conclusion we can make by reading your post is that peace talks and dialogue cannot start until the aggression from both sides has ended, both sides have what they want, and we ultimately have peace. Do you see the problem with that? De-escalation of aggression is the GOAL of peace talks, not the prerequisite. If Israel is going to abandon it's settlements across the make believe 'borders', you have to show them they'd gain something by doing so. Some guarantees of peace and safety might do the trick. If, however, they're still going to have all their neighbours financing, committing and vowing the same violence afterwards AND they're going to have hundreds of thousands of homeless evacuees, logic and a basic understanding of human nature would suggest they shouldn't.

The common sense revolution was exactly that. It was a shift away from spending money that we didn't have. Other than the 407 being sold off I loved Mike Harris. I'd take him any day over McGuinty. He has no idea how to run an economy.

I agree with this 100%. Why should a private company be forced to run unprofitable and impractical routes? I'm with Greyhound on this one.

It's not a rural/city divide. It's a metropolis/everything else divide. It's not the 'plight' of the urban or rural voter that's in question here. The problem a lot of people outside of those three cities have is that an excessive portion of federal/provincial funds go towards big city projects.

The Liberal votes aren't concentrated on urban centres in general. It's just three VERY specific cities that account for close to 25% of Canada's population.

That's all fair, though I do feel that $300 million is a steep cost to develop a budget plan where the election results will likely be the same as last time, or at least another useless minority. To be honest, if Ignatieff would back the f off of the EI issue and promise not to start throwing money around, I'd probably vote for him just to get Harper out of there and show leaders on the right that excessive spending is NEVER okay.

It's because Liberal social programs, or social programs in general, are largely concentrated in large cities. Combine this with the LPC's over-generous immigration policies (family re-unification and refugee claims etc) and the heavy ethnic populations in these cities and you have a perfect stew for pandering.

Nobody has one. You and I both know better. Ignatieff was just recently saying that Harper needed to do MORE to stimulate the economy. I've already judged him on his demands for more and faster stimulus as well as more and easier to access EI. Now he's pulled a complete 180 and thus I'm left with the VERY distinct impression that he's just firing shots out into the dark and waiting to see what the polls say. I think whoever proposes tax increases, before or after the election, will fare VERY poorly moving forward. We've had one year of stimulus spending and our national debt is still VERY manageable. There's no reason to increase taxes and slow growth when simply reversing some of Harper's silly spending increases. I'm no media spin man myself, but I don't think it would be very hard to flay Ignatieff alive if he tried that. I could drown in the quotes and media clips that the CPC could show where he was demanding more stimulus. It wouldn't be hard to make him look like a used car salesman. Hey I don't mind it being an election issue. I'd love to see reduced spending.