Bob

Still wondering what the maximum percentage of Canada's population you're comfortable with as Muslims...

Cheney's done the interview circuit lately, having long interviews with John King and Sean Hannity. Cheney was and is fantastic, but I wish he was less concerned with the "winning hearts and minds" bullshit from the savages.

Why are we adjusting to their needs? If your prayer needs interfere with your job requirements, perhaps it's time to look for another job. This is just another example in the West's capitulation to inferior societies and ideologies. In the long-term, unless we can stand up and assert our superiority, we're finished. What's the maximum percentage of the population you're willing to accept in Canada to be Muslim?

There are plenty of Jews out their who are hand-in-hand with the vermin among us. Am I supposed to be surprised? The list of Jews I know that are complicit ideologically with our enemies is much longer than the list of Jews you know, yet you act as if somehow you're showing me something new. I'm guessing you've heard of Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein ("good Jews", eh?), and that's about it. Perhaps Gideon Levy, as well? Maybe Avi Shlaim or Gershon Baskin? I can probably list of at least fifty prominent Jews that are the enemies of civilization in one way or another within a few minutes, from many corners of the globe. There's no shortage of disgusting Jewish politicians and "intellectuals" out there. What's funny is that bud actually thinks I haven't seen that video, before...

Ramadan memo creates controversy So Ontario public service employees were sent some memo about being "sensitive" to Muslims during the holy month of Ramadan, and "accommodating" their prayer/washing needs, and no displaying food during meetings and other gatherings because of their fast. So pathetic.

So recognition of the Jewish people's national rights only became an issue in 2007? Gotcha. Another sharp analysis from our resident expert on Israel and the "Palestinians".

There have been several terrorism-related arrests in Ottawa. Guess what the descriptions of the suspects all had in common?

The vast majority of Muslims I know, and I know many ad have had countless conversations with them about these issues, express sympathy and engage in apologism for Islamism and terrorism. Overwhelming majority of Muslims have a very different perspective of Islamic terrorism than do non-Muslims, and I'm talking about Muslims in Western countries. Don't think for a second that somehow what you might define as "moderate Islam" is prevalent among Muslim groups in the West.

You're partially correct. Of course it isn't necessary for anyone to recognize Israel for what it is and what will always be - the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. We're here and we are what we are with or without Arab/Muslim "recognition" or from their supporters like yourself. Where recognition is important, however, is towards really concluding this conflict. Without recognition from the Arabs/Muslims and their armchair apologists, like yourself, the conflict will perpetuate endlessly. Trying to blame us, which is what you're doing, is quite ridiculous but also expected. This entire conflict is predicated on Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish national rights in our land. To portray this issue as some sort of irrelevant deflection reflects your own obliviousness of the core issues of this conflict, which of course you view through your idiotic and myopic "strong vs. weak" paradigm, typical of the bleeding heart liberal who thinks she can intellectualize things about issues which she knows nothing. Of course it's easy for people like you to do that when you can reduce any problem in the world, regardless of its complexity, to the idiotic refrain of the left - "strong vs. weak", "rich vs. poor", "advantaged vs disadvantaged", "white vs. non-white", or what have you. There's no shortage of issues and conflicts that you can't pretend to understand through this simplistic paradigm, and we at MLW expect you to keep on delivering the goods.

You had one thing right, you're clueless about this subject. Israel doesn't have a constitution, it has a Declaration of Independence (which identifies Israel as a Jewish and democratic state - which can be a contradiction in some future hypothetical scenarios) and Basic Laws. There is nothing bigoted at all about identifying the nature of the country as Jewish, and as being the homeland of the Jewish people. We are a real people. We are different from those who are not Jewish. We have a homeland which we can call our own through which we can actualize independence and self-determination. There is nothing bigoted about that. Indeed, alleging that such values for the Jewish people are racist, a la Durban conferences and the UN's declaration of "Zionism is racism" (resolution 3379, 1975) is what's really racist. Those who seek to deny us our national rights, although they will never succeed, are of course the real racists. As far as the term "anti-Semitism", it was coined long ago as a term to describe anti-Jewish prejudice. Of course it's not the most accurate term in a logical sense, considering that the category of people designated as "Semites" is broader than just the Jewish people, but it is what it is. Don't jump on the bandwagon of idiots who are trying to redefine a term for political purposes.

Bud is a johnny-come-lately to this issue, he just heard about it a couple of years ago and took it up in order to give some meaning to his otherwise empty life. Either that or he's a Muslim who goes with the flow and enjoys throwing around terms like "international law", "occupation", "social justice", and "East Jerusalem" in order to pretend to be something he's not: knowledgeable.

The "Palestinians" and broader Arab/Muslim collective isn't obligated to do anything. You keep talking about "legalities" as if proclamations from the UN and its "international law" mean anything. Nobody can force Arabs/Muslims to stop being anti-Semitic. But their ongoing rejection of Jewish national rights in our land of Israel is the core of the conflict. Always has been, always will be. They might as well "recognize" Israel as a Muslim state if they don't indicate the Jewish character of the country. "Recognition" is quite meaningless in and of itself, but sincere recognition would lead to a cessation of hatred, murder, and terrorism - because rejection of Jewish statehood is what compels them to keep murdering us. They're been doing it since the late 19th century and they're not gonna stop anytime soon.

Rejection of Jewish independence independence is the core of this conflict, and has been for decades before 1948, let alone 1967. Since the Arabs/Muslims will always view the land as belong to them, they will never accept the Jewish state of Israel. Therefore, peace is an unattainable ghost like the magic dragon in the South Park episode Guitar Queero. That you are dumbfounded by this shows that you don't even have a basic grasp of this conflict or any of the central issues. It's funny and sad how people like yourself, who know so little, can still pretend to care so much...

The only thing that's funny is how you think the ICC is somehow some independent entity from the UN. It is an institution established to enforce the "laws" passed by the UN. It adheres to "international law" as defined by the UN. It was established following mobilization at the UN to create a kangaroo court to "prosecute crimes" as defined by them. The ICC works hand-in-hand with the same NGOs that politicize the UN. The same types of people work for both institutions. As far as funding goes, it's exactly the same as the UN - with the civilized, modern countries paying the entire way (I think the USA pays about 25% of the cost of the ICC). The ICC is part of the same "internationalist" system that the UN is a part of. Put simply, the ICC gets its money from the same place the UN does, even though it doesn't get money directly from the UN. It's essentially the same thing. This kinda stupidity reminds me of a funny episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, where Larry lends ten thousand dollars to this "friend" of his. When Larry finds out that this "friend" of his is hosting a mega expensive party and that Larry wasn't invited, Larry confronts this "friend" and states that he is in fact paying for this party to which he hasn't been invited. Know what his "friend" says? "Oh, Larry, I used that ten thousand dollars for something else." It's the same stupid shit you're trying to peddle in here with your imaginary "independence" of the ICC. What "independence" really means, in this context, is non-accountability to those who actually pay for it.

It's true in a sense, but if you share my perspective that America has not prosecuted these wars aggressively enough in order to pander to the suicidal and bleeding heart left-wing of the country that values the lives of enemies more than American soldiers, you'll see my point. Consider that America is still at war with a "society" of savages and barbarians in Afghanistan. Why is that? Because America isn't really willing to crush its enemies due to some misplaced concern for the lives of "innocent people". Perhaps that's true. But I'm not one of those nationals. I think there's a strong argument to be made for a more humble foreign policy from America. But when I say humble, I don't necessarily mean not intervening military with enemies important interests are threatened, but I mean not trying to "win hearts and minds" of people who are indoctrinated into hating you and simply "mowing the lawn" when they get out of line rather than trying to upgrade unworthy societies into the exclusive club of modern civilization. I will never understand the perspective of some Americans (including Bush and Obama) who think that somehow Western democracy is a universal ideal that all peoples strive for. Let them kill each other, it's not America's problem. And if the animals get out of line and their problems spill over into American/Western interests, America should just "mow the lawn", so to speak.

The ICC is as independent from the UN as the CBC is from the Canadian government. Of course wyly is unable to discern between ideas on paper and reality.

I'm not proposing American become some sort of oppressive empire, but it seems to me that America keeps getting bullied by its supposed "allies". This is true from Israel still confidently receiving its cheque from America despite contravening America's declared expectations, to Pakistan being complicit in the murder of American soldiers and other civilians yet still receiving its money in military aid. It seems as if America won't stand up for its interests, and constantly bends to the will of lesser powers (largely a product of how prevalent bleding heart suicidal leftism has become within domestic politics). It's almost as if American's decline in influence around the world (which is certainly bad thing) is a product of America's unwillingness to really exert its power (military and economic), despite the constant lies from the left about an aggressive and imperialistic America.

What "influence" does having money invested in Canadian assets give a person over the Canadian government, sir? This is just left-wing bullshit chasing the boogie man of the rich people pulling the political strings of our country.

Obama has a different vision and perception, clearly, as his moves on the "international stage" suggest that he wants reduced American sovereignty, which of course he would describe as "greater involvement" or "greater cooperation" to help "improve America's image". Virtually all of his moves at the UN and abroad project American weakness and deference to its enemies. It's embarrassing to watch. I remember seeing an image of him getting off of Air Force One with a copy of Fareed Zakaria's (left-wing moron) Post American world. The examples of this are endless. I don't think Bush was much better, either.

"International institutions" only threaten our sovereignty when idiot leaders (i.e. Chretien saying he would "follow the will of the UN") defer their responsibilities to the decisions of verminous bureaucrats. And again we cannot get past the idiocy of the USA (and Canada) for not immediately withdrawing funding from the UN. Indeed, we're all getting exactly what we deserve because abolishing the UN is never even discussed on "serious" programming like the CBC or CNN or BBC. As we've seen from the usual suspects in here who cling to the myth of the UN being some sort of worthwhile and indispensable institution, any call for abolition of the UN and expulsion of third-world trash "representatives" from NYC is labelled as "far-right extremism". We're getting exactly what we deserve, and the Arab/Muslim societies and other inferior cultures and countries are laughing at us. I said it before and I'll say it again, we need to get to the point where apologists for the UN are immediately derided with contempt. It needs to be brought to the point where people despise UN supporters just as they do communists and Nazis, so that internationalists (basically global communists, like supporters of the EU) are forced to once again hide in the shadows and play war games in their basements while they masturbate to the thought of a global worker revolution.

Good points. And of course we've got some nonsense responses from Michael Hardner and cybercoma, the first being some simplistic idea of the evil and influential capitalists shaping public policy (yeah right), and the latter using more class warfare rhetoric about the oppressed "working class".

Yeah, why should the most educated, advanced, richest, and freest countries have more of a say than the inferior, racist, violent, primitive, uneducated and dictatorial countries. Who are we to judge that Canada is a superior country in every dimension when compared to Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, or Kazakhstan?

Same could be said for property tax, where you pay property tax as an owner every year and still pay tax when you sell the home. And investment properties are taxed at an even higher rate. It's all the product of leftist politicians going after the "greedy rich".

"Many people inherit their wealth"? Who the hell are you talking about? And that wealth WAS earned. As CPCFTW has already explained, even if someone inherits wealth, it's none of your goddamned business, and it was earned by their families for their children and future families, and you have no right to it. Unfortunately, we still have archaic estate taxes in this country that are justified through the envious, covetous, loser leftist rhetoric that you clearly subscribe to and identify with. At least in the USA Bush had the guts to kill what was aptly named the death tax. As far as losers digging ditches, am I supposed to admire someone who works like a monkey just because he sweats a lot? Why do you glorfy losers who dig ditches because they have nothing of value to offer society? People like that, who were given every opportunity to succeed by living in a free meritocracy and ended up as losers are the ones who should be held in contempt, not placed on pedestals as "hard workers" who ended up digging ditches because they were too dumb to finish high school. I said the same thing to another poster on MLF regarding another issue, but it boils down to the same thing - leftists like you lionize losers and worship weakness. And when you fail, you'll always be able to blame the greedy capitalist (while of course you're not greedy, you just think with enough votes you can steal whatever you want from those who have money) who somehow got rich off of your sweat. I'll never understand it.

I am attacking the leftist imaginary demon of the wealthy rich capitalist who simply stays rich by "moving money" while fleecing the noble underclass. I've heard this shit for years, especially in an anti-Semitic context with loser blacks complaining of the "Jewish merchants" who "suck money" from their communities by simply owning and operating a variety store (i.e. Crown Height riots). Buying properties, renting them out, maintaining them, etc is a lot of work. We don't live in aristocratic times, anymore. The pathetic envy and covetous nature of the loser left (as CPCFTW has already mentioned) reveals the true nature of the loser left - it isn't about fairness of "equality", it's about resentment of those who have more than they do. And you need to work to get there. I despise leftist rhetoric of the type we see from jacee that expresses contempt for those who are wealthy, as if they simply sit around and watch Oprah all day and are millionaires. It's a sickening narrative of the loser left in order to demean wealthy people and perpetuate this us vs. them class warfare. Typical NDP bullshit, where every idiot working at a Tim Horton's would've been a brain surgeon had it not been for the phantoms of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, or some other imaginary social obstacle that couldn't be overcome because the government (led by benevolent visionaries like jacee) hadn't stepped in deep enough.