ft.niagara

There are alot of speculations which do not come true. However, the most likely country to be the target of a WMD is the United States, not Canada. After 911 there was much after blame, and even a panel to lay blame. It seems like the reactive strategy has been tried, so in comes the proactive strategy. Japan and the atom bomb is a nonissue, a totally different situation. That was war, this is not. They call this terrorism.

Apparently, Iran is going to hold a conference concerning the Holocaust. Something about it being false. It sounds pretty scientific, they have researchers from 30 countries who are going to speak. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235686,00.html "The conference, scheduled for Sunday and Monday, was organized by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the systematic killing of some 6 million Jews a "myth" and "exaggerated." Some 67 foreign researchers from 30 countries are scheduled to attend the two-day meeting."

You are excused, but on second thought, Canada should be concerned about Iran. It might be just road kill when Iran comes for the US. PS, didn't you mean 'your...intellectually' instead of 'you intellectual deficient postings'? I know, a typo. Ah, go ahead and edit it. I think you should read a few more political books.

How dumb you are to think I actually thought it did.

How do you figure that? A junkie isn't a junkie without a supplier. Canada was the biggest supplier of liquor during prohibition. Canada has always benefited from American prohibitions. Name the probitition, Canada has short circuited it.

This thread is about is there a Jewish conspiracy, and Carter's book and op-ed seem to go along with that, an information conspiracy. It is thought by some that the media is controled by Jewish people. Carter feels that there is an abnormally strange absence of Israel debate in the American media. One plus one would indicate a Jewish conspiracy, at least according to Jimmy Carter. This all leads to a thought, is the American military independent, or just an auxillary to the Israeli military?

Jimmy Carter seems to indicate that there is a conspiracy to manipulate a no debate about Israel mentality in the United States, whereas there is debate in the rest of the world. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...home-commentary "The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices"

You could say the same thing for ecstasy, the very thing this thread was started to protest against. My response was to highlight the faulty thinking in saying that it is all Canada's fault. The irony seems to have been lost on you. Post 20, "Nothing is perfect just doesn't cut it when it comes to organized crime. There is in fact no excuse for it with todays ability to do background checks, and the like". Yes I think it is Canada's fault. You, typical of a liberal America hater try to divert attention from the issue (Canadian gangs) to guns (America's fault). Of course, you are so brilliant, you know that already. '

OK, then you are not a typical Jew, for a Jew you are right of center. Did you listen to the Israel Radio link? He was disgusted with the idea of gay Rabbis, if I remember.

An event such as WW II can hardly leave anyone unaffected. Particularly the Muslm world, which picked the wrong side. How compassionate!!! The Arabs picked the wrong side in both World Wars. Turkey lost its empire after WWI, but other than that the Arabs really have not suffered much from either loss, except the Palestinians, at least in the opinion of most Arabs. And that Iranian President is hell bent on distroying Israel, and then the US. Hell, he will probably distroy Canada while he is at it.

Unfortunately, there is nothing much to say about them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235279,00.html "NEW YORK — The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations sparked a furor Wednesday night when he said at a speech in New York that Palestinians are suffering today because of "atrocities" that happened in World War II, specifically against the Jews." WWII has had a long tail, and will continue to have a long tail though history. While it is true that Zionism started before 1900, its power gained momentum as a result of WWII. The situation of the Palestinian people can reasonably be said to be effected by the same dynamics as effected Zionism. At least the Iranian Ambassador acknowledged the Holocaus which is more than the Iranian President has done.

Sorry about the spelling I wrote it quickly before work, and no I do not hate Jews. I have worked with one for 30 years. BTW, he is a frustrating knee jerk liberal, almost a contraian. I just think that Jews vote as a group, similar to how Blacks vote as a group. For Blacks, I think it is about 90% Democrat. For Jews, probably not quaite that high a percentage. And no, I do not think that voting preference is all related to Ellis Island, it is related to a deep liberal tradition among Jews in North America. Mr. normanchateau wanted proof for an opinion, which is rediculous anyway, and you seemed to demonstrate my opinion. In other words, to me you seem typically Jewish, but perhaps to the extreme. In Israel, the Jews are more conservative: http://www.israelnationalradio.com/Asx/tovias-w-2.asx

In a pervious post you reference where you post on Canadian forums about Israel. Israel Israel. You are leading a campain.

G-d's name. You are a lawyer, but I will spell it out. "Observation. Jbg is a Jewish liberal, yet he is a hawk when it comes to Israel, and most Jews probably are. Most Jews are liberal, example Streisand, and most liberals are against a strong military, example Clinton. Even jbg would probably agree with the generalization, and has agreed, to his dismay, that most Jews vote Democrat (because they are liberal) even though the Republicans are stronger supporters of Israel (his favorite issue)." ft.niagara "I am more hawkish than most Jews on most issues (examples are North Korea and Cuba), even though obviously I do support Israel strongly. And I do take what I consider to be progressive positions on all issues, including military issues. I do not see any set of facts under which the various Arab governments and non-governmental terrorist groups can be viewed as any kind of force for progress. They are a force for dismantly progress painstakingly made by others, especially Christians and Jews. I agree that Jews tend to vote Democratic in the US, Liberal in Canada, because of the pattern of the other parties in each case, back in the days of immigration, to "shut out" Jews. Wihle Democrats were lining the docks at Ellis Island (New York City area) and guiding Jews through English language instruction, obtaining apartments and jobs (and not so incidentally voter registration) Republicans were fretting about the threat to American identity posed by immigrants. Not smart politics given that over 1 million per year were coming in in those days. That should explain the Jews' historical ties to parties historically taking progressive positions. Hopefully, that will not survive these parties' reactionary politics and policies." jbg Using You as a typical Jew, expressing your positions. Most Jews are doves except when it comes to Israel. You are "more hawkish than most Jews", means most Jews are doves. Your support for Israel is in line with most Jews. Progressive (liberal) positions is in line with most Jews. "Including military", means you are not in line with most Jews leaning toward a strong military. A progressive position would mean weak military. You then explain why you think most Jews are Democrat, but then you express hope that Jewish support will not continue to blindly follow the Democratic Party's "reactionary politics and policies", because as I said the Republicans are stronger supporters of Israel (your favorite topic). Further, my "observation" was not about your voting record, but about the Jewish people's voting record, and positions. My opinions are only confirmed by what you have said in your postings, not formed by them. They were formed long ago.

If I recall, you made reference to 'self importance'. My posts were directed to comments made by different people, therefore separate posts. As far as a measure of a poster's merit, I do not think of it in that way. They all have different flavors, and make for a delicious salad. I think of posting as sort of a free discussion, and free discussions do not require the sort of research some people seem to like. Again, that reflects the different flavors of thinking. As far as posting history, I do pay attention to it. It does give insight into the poster. A short active history may mean he came from somewhere else where he was active and left for some reason. Or, he might have taken a break, and has returned. A long active history means he is an experienced forum user, and devotes alot of time to it developing a reputation and a personality within a forum, ie Black Dog. As you say, looking at numbers does not say anything to your background. Sometimes a PhD might be talking to a high school dropout. Your credentials are your postings.

Life is not a series of statistics. Even court evidence is not numbers, percentages, statistics, etc. Even statistics can be biased depending on who puts them together, and their polling methods. In the age of google searches, your idea of a discussion I guess is a series of google quiries. Kind of funny if you think about it. Gimme a link, LOL. Go have a conversation with your computer. In other words, you have no evidence other than your preconceived stereotypes of Jews. Look at post 118. Basicly, it agrees with my views (steriotypes). It is written by an 'expert witness' jbg. There is my evidence.

Life is not a series of statistics. Even court evidence is not numbers, percentages, statistics, etc. Even statistics can be biased depending on who puts them together, and their polling methods. In the age of google searches, your idea of a discussion I guess is a series of google quiries. Kind of funny if you think about it. Gimme a link, LOL. Go have a conversation with your computer.

Do you have evidence for this generalization? Observation. Jbg is a Jewish liberal, yet he is a hawk when it comes to Israel, and most Jews probably are. Most Jews are liberal, example Streisand, and most liberals are against a strong military, example Clinton. Even jbg would probably agree with the generalization, and has agreed, to his dismay, that most Jews vote Democrat (because they are liberal) even though the Republicans are stronger supporters of Israel (his favorite issue).

Lets just say that there is racial tension and steriotyping with and without segregation. Instead of closer proximity to white society rising the black, it seems more the other way around with closer proximity lowering the white. Out of wedlock births, and rap music to name a few. I feel sorry for Richards who felt he was under attack and outnumbered, and fought back with his tongue and wits. No one recorded the taunts. Only one side was recorded to my knowledge.

I disagree - segregation emphasizes petty differences, and causes them to be blown out of proportion. This leads to unending opportunities to offend each other. Aren't we talking about the use of the word ni@@er and its use of has been blown out of proportion? This was caused because we were NOT segregated. Further, the use of that word is banned on this board, but it certainly is not illegal to use, or is it? Mr. Richards will probably pay money damages for what? Better segregation.

I think you're projecting errors on others rather than facing your own. I never discerned between people from other cultures and racists. In fact, you don't even know what culture I come from. You're automatically assuming everyone is coming from a white perspective, and they aren't. Now that you've seen the movie (I assume), you probably realize that your interpretation that it was an expose on undue tolerance of anti-semitism was half-baked and out to lunch. I agree. I can not imagine that Jerry Steinfeld has seen the movie he is comenting about. He sounds like the comedian his name implies, certainly not the social comentator he would like to be. First you do not know who where paid and unpaid actors. Second, some of the Jewish shots were funny AND cruel. The running of the Jews was very funny, but certainly they were paid actors from Romania. Some of the shots were done there. This does not reflect on the US or antisemitism here or there except Cohen's desire for shock and awe. The female Jew laying a Jewish egg which must be broken before it hatches was especially funny, but did not show any political commentary except poor people will do almost anything for money and to be in a movie. When he is taken into an elderly Jewish couple's home, and he makes like they are trying to poison him is cruel, and without social commentary IMO. I certainly hope they were paid actors also, because if they were not and in on the joke, it was inexcusable. You can spindoctor anything. However, I feel that Borat was a cheap film to make, will probably make millions, will definately be a cult film for decades, but did not help the Jewish people, no matter how the resident Jewish posters would like to spin it.

There are militants and moderates in all things except atheism. As you say, atheism is a nothing, with really nothing to be said about it. Atheists are unlikely to change the world in an image, because there is no image. Therefore, my vote went to militant islamists.

Care to prove this? Prove to me that homosexuality is more than preverted sex.

What religion?