Bob

Except Uganda isn't where we come from, is it? Israel is the most important place of our historical heritage. Moreover, Israel had already been decided on in the late 19th century, anyways, when the early Zionists began to reclaim our land and lay the foundations for the rebirth of Israel. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it looks like you're engaged in yet another pathetic attempt to try and delegitimize Jewish self-determination in Israel. As if the solutions considered to stateless by the early Zionists, for example Uganda, somehow undermine the path that was chosen that has led us to where we are today.

Of course, the money that America pours in Muslim-majority states is of no concern to the reflexively anti-Israel/anti-Semitic crowd. Israel has received and average of about 2.5 billion dollars per year in aid from the USA since 1979, (primarily military aid). Egypt has received about 2 billion dollars since this same time period, as sort of a payment/bribe/incentive for both states to enter into an official peace treaty. Nobody wants to talk about the billions poured into Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia. Nor do they want to talk about the average of about three billion dollars per year (primarily military aid) going to Pakistan since about 2003. Nor do they want to talk about the untold billions poured in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is much more difficult to navigate given the complex nature of how the money is categorized: aid, state department operations, military, reimbursements, etc. Finally, the "Palestinians", who are among the highest per-capita recipients of foreign aid, are never discussed. It shouldn't be forgotten that the "Palestinians" receive billions of dollars from many sources: direct bilateral aid from the USA and many other countries, as well as transfers from the UN and its subsidiary institutions (primarily UNRWA, of course funded by the USA and many other countries), as well as some assistance from Muslim-majority countries and other places (self-described charities, etc). UNRWA's budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year was about 1.7 billion dollars. There was also a recent "International Donor's Conference for the Palestinian State" in February of this year which pledged 7.7 billion dollars for the "Palestinians" over a three-year period (with the USA being the largest single-state donor, of course). The bottom line? The typical anti-Israel/anti-Semitic leftists harp on and on about the alleged one-sidedness of America with respect to its position on the Israel-Arab conflict, while remaining completely oblivious to the broader context within which American foreign aid to Israel occurs. America pours a lot more money into Muslim-majority countries, essentially Israel's enemies. Yet America is said to be "one-sided" and "unfair" in its approach to the conflict. Listening to the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic leftists who use "Zionist" in a pejorative sense, one would be left with the impression that Israel is the only recipient of foreign aid in the world, while the disadvantaged and noble Arabs/Muslims are completely swept aside and ignored.

Good decision by Jason Kenney, but it doesn't go far enough. Full face covering must be banned in more circumstances, and private businesses should be permitted to deny service to people who cover their faces for security concerns. For example, when providing one's health card for the rendering of medical services, all individuals should be required to show their faces so that their identities may be confirmed. Same goes for voting, for police detentions and arrests, for legal testimony, and so forth. As usual, the leftists are engaging in apologism for Islamist ideology and inferior/barbaric cultural practises. Kinda reminds me of when Justin Trudeau stated that he was "uncomfortable with the tone" of the revised Canadian citizenship guide that was released a little while back, implying that perhaps honour killings shouldn't be characterized as "barbaric". This is the leftist moral relativist mindset in full effect. Ideally, full facial coverings would be completely banned in public given the fact having our faces shown adds an element of accountability/personal responsibility for one's actions. Also, viewing each other's faces is an integral part of in-person human communication that is sickeningly cut off by a misogynistic cultural/religious practise.

I wonder how much money could be saved by stopping social security payments to seniors that didn't really earn it. For example, those that were unemployed for extended periods of time in their working years. Although I know social security payments are somewhat contingent on historical earnings, we know it's not really all that equitable for higher-income earners. It's also somewhat of a gamble from the actuarial perspective. Although the following comment is meaningless in the search for a resolution, I think it was a certainly a bad idea in the first place to implement a nationwide forced retirement plan.

It's the usual pathetic leftist knee-jerk animosity towards profit. Profit is treated like some sort of offensive four-letter-word, rather than the incentive required to bring people together through commerce for mutual benefit. And of course, those that hate profit the most are those that are unable to provide any real value to society through the creation of wealth.

Blueblood wants the government to "invest" in him with money that's been earned by the group he is now describing as leeches. It's unreal.

Why does it bother you that business sees an opportunity to provide services in Libya that are of value? There's a demand for certain business there, so business responds. There's nothing untoward about that on its face. What do you expect, businesses to give away their professional services and products for free?

That's why you don't kick a hornet's nest, you destroy it. In the third video there's some myopic and ignorant twenty-something blonde kid, the useful idiot for the enemy, pleading for "dialogue" to address the "roots" relevant to terrorism: poverty and racism. The arrogance of the left in thinking that they can charm their way into civilizing Muslim-majority countries and bring them from the dark ages into modernity never ceases to amaze me. Contrary to his idea of how to fight terrorism, there's really only one way to do it effectively: smash them over an anvil until there's nothing left.

He didn't say that.

Not sure which of you folks have the will to watch all three parts, but I posted it because we're still hearing the same despicable rhetoric from the left with all of its clear insinuations. I also have good reason to believe that this audience isn't exactly atypical of the broader UK population. The audience was largely leftist with the inextricable anti-Americanism that comes with such ideological leanings: sort of a package deal we've seen for many decades, now. It's also worth noting that the only audience members that expressed solidarity with America and rejected the left's attempts to draw moral equivalence between America and Muslim-majority countries (or, some even seemed to imply a moral superiority on the side of Mohammedan societies) were white. There is certainly a racial/ethnic component to political orientation in the West with respect to absurd leftism/reflexive anti-Americanism (I know this is obvious). It should be no secret by now that Muslims in the West almost exclusively harbour animosity towards America based on the false political/historical narratives that they subscribe to (fantasies of "American imperialism", Israel is the "biggest terrorist", Islam is a religion of peace, the Middle East would be a paradise if only it weren't for America/Israel, etc). Although to a lesser degree than Muslims, blacks are also much more likely to advance these same false narratives. these anti-Western enemies within are obviously much bolder and outspoken in places like the UK than in the USA. Canada's not far behind, though, we can see this same sick narrative in all aspects of Canadian society: in the media, in universities, in our politics, and certainly among ordinary folks around the dinner table.

In other words, you won't explain your intentions and will now retreat behind insults.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMKIsWbwzTg You can follow the links to the other two parts of this video. Listen to the leftist guests and audience (aside from a couple of exceptions) imply, ever-so-subtly, that America deserved the attacks of 9/11. Furthermore, listen to pre-emptive condemnations from the leftist filth of America's inevitable acts of self-defence. Then listen to some Muslims and leftists in the audience blame the attacks on "Palestine" and the enforcement of the no-fly-zone over pre-2003 Iraq.

Why should young people have more money spent on them by a government to which they've not yet significantly contributed than older people who have?

Ever consider the possibility that I don't feel compelled to provide "proof" disproving every stupid thing you say on MLW? Rather, I find it more amusing to allow you to continue living in your fantasy world where Canada is Israel's benefactor, giving Israel untold millions (or billions, even?) of dollars annually in foreign aid.

Well, these generalization come from individuals, so to a point, you're right. I never state that all of a certain group are a certain way, though. Like you've already said, albeit in a verbose manner as if it was some sort of original insight, there are exceptions to trends.

I literally spit out some of my Diet 7-UP when I read this. So now Fareed Zakaria is one of the "great intellectuals of our time", eh? I know I've address some of the monumentally stupid things Fareed Zakaria has said (and hasn't said) on his CNN Sunday show, if you spend some more time in here I will definitely make future posts as there is no shortage of fodder that comes from Zakaria on regular basis. You must be pretty young and ignorant to not realize the obvious, which is what bush_cheney2004 already said: many people over 65 continue working. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, either, as you're not specific at all. Either way, for Americans that paid into Social Security, they deserve their money.

I knew you'd not get a response to your historical reference. You're speaking about things way beyond GostHacked's and bud's combines knowledge, and perhaps even their capabilities to comprehend or examine honestly.

If your intention wasn't to try to smear Jewish people, in an attempt to draw moral equivalence between the broader Jewish people and broader Muslim world (where there is no such equivalence to be drawn), then why did you post an article about a murder story perpetrated by a religious Jewish man in an orthodox Jewish community? Tell us all, explicitly, what your intention when you posted that story?

It's funny how you need to be so verbose in order to state the obvious: there are exceptions to trends. When you get down to the micro level of course this is true, but we were talking about things on a macro level, in case you hadn't noticed.

Exactly, much of the left trips over itself to defend the today's greatest threat to classically liberal (and now contemporarily conservative) values: freedom/liberty, pluralism, and democracy. Much of the left, committed to suicidal and morally bankrupt cultural relativism refuses to acknowledge exactly what we're dealing with when it comes to Islamism, and even Islam in general. A great example of this in recent Canadian political history was Justin Trudeau's criticism of the new Canadian citizenship guide's description of certain third-world cultural practises, such as honour-killings, as "barbaric". Justin Trudeau really thought "barbaric" was an offensive term when used to describe honour killings. He later retracted his comments, but his comments are typical of the leftist mindset, and their commitment towards drawing false moral equivalence between inferior and savage cultures and Western society, in the name of the doctrine of contemporary multiculturalism.

Why does this need to be said every time a conversation about Islamic culture arises? We cannot each write out a novel in every post to grasp all the nuances differentiating various groups of Muslims. Leftists like yourself love to destroy debates with such obfuscations, trying to draw attention away from core issues being discussed. Of course the degrees of misogyny vary between differing Islamic societies (with Islamic societies that have had more exposure to the West being more modern than those that have been insulated from Western influence), does that really need to be said? Did anyone in here ever imply that Islam was monolithic? Do you think you're portraying yourself as some sort of level-headed intellectual that is wise enough to state, as if correcting us, that there is diversity within the broader Muslim world? Do you want a congratulations for stating the obvious? I will congratulate you on one thing, however, and that's for successfully derailing the discussion from the obvious flaws within Islamic culture (misogyny, anti-pluralistic/highly tribal, anti-democratic, highly violent, and highly uneducated) towards irrelevant and obvious tangents (such the non-monolithic nature of the broader Muslim world).

And you continue misrepresenting my own words. I've said several times now, clearly, that it is the threat of violence that keeps many women in Muslim families compliant with cultural/religious expectations against their will. I invite anyone to look at any of my earlier posts in this thread to verify what I'm saying. I admire your staunch commitment to dishonesty.

Go have some conversations with honest and modern Muslims. They'll tell you.

Exactly. Of course, we've got this thing called "reasonable accommodation" in Canada, which is obviously exploitable.

It's the threat of violence that isn't uncommon. At the same time, I don't doubt the sincerity of the religious of most Muslim women wearing hijabs. Still, many of them are held in check for fear of violence. You realize that there's a difference between the threat of violence (and the influence on behaviour such threats can have) and the use of violence, right?