KeyStone

Nice to know tht you condone the slaughter of 250 innocent children. But hey, Israel was aiming for terrorists, so that makes everything OK, doesn't it? The 'human shield' talking point seems to be particularly well distributed as every Israeli suckup seems to be using it. You don't even stop to think about what it means. Were the Japanese civilians killed by the atom bomb human shields. Should the US have asked all the military to go to one island while the civilians stayed on another so they could easily kill the military? Do you understand the concept of guerilla warfare? This is what you do when you are vastly overmatched militarily. You don't stand in an open field and wait for the Israeli drones to drop bombs on you. Like I say, leave the planes and the assault weapons behind, and I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than happy to fight you.

I love the way Americans and Israelis try to dictate what constitutes an honourable fight. Of course, if they ever did march in their snappy little uniforms - Israel and the US would mow them down with their mega-billion warplanes or better yet kill them with their unmanned drones. Or perhaps they could fire tomohawk missiles on them from 200 miles away. That's courage. Listen, any time the US or Israelis want to have a fair fight, and have equal weapons, I have no doubt that the Taliban or any other group would be more than happy to take them on. Until then, let's stop the charade of pretending that Israeli and US opponents are cowardly just because they won't fight with their pistols against warplanes.

Sure, 2/3rds can't pass. But, I bet if they had a week to prepare, the vast majority of those citizens could pass. Look, the test isn't all that hard if you study and it accomplishes the following: 1) Adds a little more weight to the citizenship. It's not just another form to fill out. 2) Creates a sense of achievement and a source of pride. (ie Not everyone can become a Canadian citizen) 3) Ensures that they are willing to invest a little time in understanding our country. 4) Educates them with some of the basics, especially since they are going to be able to vote.

So all those laws that they made that made it illegal for businesses to forbid black people to come into their place of business were unnecessary? You're forgetting about the 1% rule. In business, it doesn't matter how many people hate you, as long as 1% of the population loves you.

Is Sid advocating this as head of CUPE or just on his own? Because I see no reason why his union needs to pay dues so he can go after his own agenda. Plus the idea of collective punishment against all Israelis profs seems a bit silly. At least limit it to those that are funded by the government. However, he's not being racist. 1) Jews are not a race. 2) The policy targets Israel - not Jews (therefore Israeli Arabs would not be allowed either) 3) Policies limiting interactions with people from specific countries is not a new concept. 4) The Hitler thing was stupid but not racist. No good can come out of Hitler analogies.

There is a difference between creating laws based on religion and creating laws that allow for the freedom of religion. For instance: Should the children of Jehovah witnesses be forced to accept blood? Should pharmacists be forced to distribute the Morning after pill? Should women be allowed to wear a hijab when playing soccer? Should RCMP officers be allowed to wear turbans? Should employers be forced to let Jewish people off on Jewish holidays? It is one thing to seperate church and state. It is quite another to make atheism the official religion of the state, by only accepting the practice of religion, so long as it does not inconvenience anyone.

That's not true at all. One of the most fundamental differences is how the two men view the future of Canada. Harper views it being led by Harper, where as Ignatieff views it as being led by Ignatieff. Other than that...I'm also at a loss.

If you're going to say shit like this, can you change your name? I don't want you representing my country. Perhaps you could be Mr Zimbabwe or Mr Chechnya?

I don't think that anyone is disputing the existence of the missile launchers. The question is what to do about it and how to deal with it. There are ways to work within the international community. This is not Mahmoud Abbas doing it. It's not Joe Palestinian - it's Hamas radicals. Israel is creating enemies out of potential allies right now. They have just handed the next election over to Hamas. Hamas didn't start a war. They fired some missiles. Israel started a war. If you want to suggest that Hamas is responsible because they fired missiles, then you have to accept that Hamas fired missles because Israel killed 6 Hamas members during a ceasefire - and so on. No one is saying Israel needs to get used to rocket attacks, but as long as there are people that hate Israel they will happen and Israel is in the process of creating even more people to hate them. Do you think that Palestinians should get used to assasinations by drones? Do you think Palestinians should get used to the settlers taking the best lands in Gaza? Well, I see that you are on the sayanim distribution list. Excellent job of cutting and pasting by the way. This 'human shield' nonsense is preposterous. First of all, Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Secondly, what do you expect them to do. Should they set up a separate area in Palestine where only terrorists live so that Israel can decimate them? Shall they march in a nice little line, with bright red uniforms out to a field where Israel can kill them with their 50 billion dollar war planes without risking civilians? The concept is just absurd. The Vietnamese did the same thing against the US because the US has superior military power. The Palestinians do not have the planes, or the assault weapons to have a straight fight. If you want to meet them without weapons, and fight with bare hands, I am sure that they would be more than willing to accommodate. They aren't using human shields. They aren't holding babies in front of them. They are attempting to hide after they attack Israel. I see. So I guess by the same token Israel wins when Israeli civilians die? Or does that logic only apply to evil Palestinians. Because as we both know, Israel has killed about ten times as many civilians and children as the Arab world combined has killed Israelis. Which didn't do jack-shit. I see. So if they limit their attacks to the military then Israel won't kill civilians? Let's see if we can remember what happened when Lebanon targeted some IDF soldiers. Hmm, guess that doesn't really make a difference does it? Perhaps you would prefer it if they only targets they are allowed to attack are Israeli drone planes? The problem is that nothing else the Palestinians have done has ever made a difference. Israelis don't listen to anything else. Those that excuse what Israel is doing right now, are no better than terrorists that blow up nightclubs. Anyone who intentionally kills children, (even if you get the occasional 'terrorist' along with them) is a terrorist. It seems that you have no problems excusing the Israelis killing children in great number. The Palestinians do not have the military to do much else. If they march in shiny new uniforms to attack Israeli soldiers, the IDF brings in the fighters and bombs the shit out of them. Great strategy. So, it would seem that your attempt to frame what is a fair form of combat essentially dictates a form of combat in which Israel can obliterate all of the Hamas fighters with their superior technology. Tell me if I am wrong. Please tell me how you think Hamas should attack Israeli military such that it would have an impact. As for the religious beliefs, that is certainly one part of it, but we don't see Palestinians doing that in Canada, do we? Jews are, for the most part undisturbed. You see, when you treat a people so poorly, that they have nothing left to lose, then be prepared for the consequences. If living conditions in Palestine improved such that people could feed their family, have hope, live a decent life, and have something to look forward to, I think you would see the number of suicide bombers decline significantly. Sure, and the living conditions of First nations is nowhere near as deplorable as how the Palestinians live (most on less than $2 a day), although Israel and the US try to block any UN efforts to actually conduct a study of exactly how bad it is. For comparison basis, let's say that a few of the most disgruntled natives launched a couple of rockets at a nearby city and injure a girl. Do you think it would be appropriate for the Canadian government to go into the reserve, and kill hundreds of people in the pursuit of those that launched the rocket? Do you think that is something that a civilized country would do? Launching rockets at civilians is wrong. Killing hundreds of civilians in response, is wrong, and it is worse (as judged by the death toll). But we can not justify one based on the other. Moreover,

Well, it's a legitimate question. Israel always claims that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, but the mounting death toll of children would suggest otherwise. In fact, it would seem that they are intentionally visiting collective punishment on them. Alternatives include: 1) Working through the UN 2) Asking other countries to help them by limiting/increasing aid based on their behaviour. 3) Setting up negotiations with the Palestinians, to actually give them a way to change things. 4) Setting up a peace process that can deal with occasional rocket attacks, by recognizing that will all the children they have killed there in the past ten years, there will always be some small percentage of Palestinians who hate Israel. 5) Working with Fatah, and supporting them financially and militarily to stop the flow of weapons etc into Palestine. Now, let me ask you, if you are a Palestinian, how should you respond to: Israel killing 6 Hamas members during the ceasefire? Israeli settlers taking the best land in Palestine, despite the massive poverty and overcrowding in Gaza? Israel denying Palestine any method of affecting change - including having a voice at the UN?

Sure, but the Tommy Douglas days are long gone. Instead the loudest NDP voices deride anyone associated with religion - and assume that they are anti-woman, anti-choice, homophobic etc. You've provided a great example by equating a more religious country with turning back the clock. Essentially, you're saying that the eradication of religion is progress.

Hey, I'm with you. Frankly, when the economic storm was happening, I was hoping that Harper would show more of what he did over the last two years. He didn't pull any outrageous surprises and the only real promise he broke was income trusts - which was necessary - although the Liberals won't admit it. I was hoping that they could all just get along and Harper could provide a sense of stability to get us through these times. And then out of nowhere, he pulls that b.s. - instead of showing the cooperation that he gave lip service to. He really blew it. He showed us just a glimpse of what his real agenda is and figured that the leaderless, financially strapped Liberals were in no position to call an election, so he could bludgeon it through. The coalition was really the only way to stop him. Since that we've seen the real Stephen Harper - desperate for power - proroguing parliament, stacking the Senate and spending big money to convince Canadians that a coalition is undemocratic - despite the fact he knows full well it is. He assumes Canadians are stupid (after all, we are proud of our Northern welfare state), and sadly from the polls I have seen, it seems he is right.

Your attitude is quite interesting. Fatah has been an ally of Israel - fighting with Hamas to secure the safety of Israel resulting in Hamas attacking them. But rather than recognize it and help them, the Zionists prefer to watch the Palestinians kill themselves off. Because in the end, the less Palestinians that are alive, the more land there is for wealthy Jewish settlers.

Well, punishing an entire country for the actions of a few rogue militants, is not a measured response. This sort of response is only going to create more militants that despise Israel. Tell me. If you were a peaceful Palestinian orchard worker, and Israeli rockets killed your three children, do you think you would think to yourself: Well, it's really our fault for firing those rockets - or would you hate Israel for the rest of your life? Furthermore, Israel has done everything possible to deny basic human rights to the Palestinians. They even (through the US) denied the UN a visit to Palestine to assess the conditions. They give them no voice. Many of them live on under $2 in dire poverty while Israeli settlers come in and take the choice lands. What exactly do you expect the Palestinians to do? If you do not give people a way to effect change peacefully, you ultimately give them no choice but to try to effect change violently. And before you say that Israel would do that if they stop the rocket attacks, you need to realize that there is not one person in Palestine with the power to stop the rocket attacks. There are rogue elements operating independently. You can not abandon the peace process because some of the radicals don't want to abide by the terms. You need to develop a peace process that accounts for setbacks. The current method is only going to be creating more anti-Israel zealots. Well, perhaps the rockets wouldn't have been fired if Israel didn't launch a strike to kill 5 Hamas militants in November. Regardless of who started what, the response is disproportionate. Certainly an interesting interpretation of what 'ceasefire' means.

Public support on one issue isn't worth the cost of printing a ballot. People have twenty issues that affect them directly. The only people likely to vote one way or the other because of this are Jews and Arabs. But we all know who fills the coffers come election time. Harper and Iggy will be tripping over themselves to demonstrate who can kiss Israel's ass the cleanest.

Well, there were a couple causes for concern: First, he sent out a fundraising letter to Conservatives telling them that Kyoto was a socialist redistribution scheme. Second, he apologized to the Americans for not going into Iraq, and suggested most Canadians were for it. Thirdly, he mocked Canada for being proud of its health care system and called us a Northern welfare state. However, since he has been in power, we haven't see any of that, so I was starting to think that he finally understood Canada and had smartened up. That was, until, he tried this last little stunt. Now I'm not so sure. In the middle of the worst recession since 1982 when the country is in crisis, and in need of strong stable government, rather than addressing the economy he tries to financially cripple the other parties under a thin guise of saving taxpayers 30M, and then attacks union rights, and pay equity all in the same motion. And that's with a minority government. I can only imagine what sort of agenda we would see if Harper got a majority.

I suppose I have a higher opinion of the Canadian military than you do. You see, I think of Canada's military as the gold star - the level of professionalism, talent, compassion and dedication that everyone looks up to. So, for us to be proud of his actions, or even to accept them, is not really the direction that I think Canada should go in. Canada sets its own standards. We don't go down to the lowest common denominator because our enemies behave poorly. Even on a tactical level, you have to think of the consequences. If the Taliban know what awaits them, do you think they'll surrender in the future? No, they'll keep fighting until they die, probably taking a few of our Canadian boys down in the process. To win hearts and minds, we need to be seen as the good guys. This means we act at a higher level.

Yeah, the 'dad' is more than a little callous on that. Still, I do understand his frustration. If she told him the truth in the first place, he never would have become their father. But through her deceit, she caused this mess - a relationship between a man and two kids built completely on lies and deceit.

Perhaps you are right. I might have been confusing with Obama. Still, Iggy seems to be calling out of the same playbook as Paul Martin.

Wow, One idiot in Florida, and it makes the rounds on every message board in the country. Let's not insult the posters here, by pretending that one moron is a fair representation of the opposition to what is happening in Palestine. The sayanim are out in force.

Well, assuming the mother is telling the truth, either: 1) Having an affair is so commonplace for her, that is not a memorable enough event to recall. 2) The medicine she is taking is so strong that it is creating huge gaps in her memory. I think that in either case, there is plenty of evidence to take these children from her and put them in the care of someone more responsible.

One of the tricks is to introduce a 'tax stimulus' package at the exact same time as a massive injection of government spending. Then of course, when the billions of dollars that goes into the economy temporarily boosts things, the anti-tax people can claim that it was the tax cut that made it happen. The stimulus really only occurs when the tax cuts are enough to steal businesses away from another jurisdiction. Of course, once the country that lost the company lowers their taxes too, then we are all back to square one, except with a lower tax base. It's no surprise that our social programs have been massively slashed, and we are running deficits now.

Well, the average size probably doesn't mean a whole lot given that 80% of the countries in the world don't have universal health care or education. I think that most Canadians would agree that handing over control of our education system and health care system to the private sector wouldn't be such a great thing. We've already seen what a smashing job the free-market poster-boys (banks) have done of managing things.

Hmm, I don't think it's anyone waking up. I think the Left is repeatedly making the mistake of ostracizing the religious, particularly Christians. They really need to decide if they want to make real change in this country, or just sit on their high moral, intolerant horses.

While I don't agree with him, what "racist" statements has he been making exactly? Or are you one of those, that just bandies about the term "racist", whenever it's convenient for you?