Harper's foreign and social policy vs. fiscal

BC_chick · December 22, 2006

I love blatant hypocrisy.
I cannot believe the anger in the tone of the responses. Incredible.

But....

Read the subject line, foreign policy, social policy, and fiscal policy. You don't like my views fine. But please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be concerned about.

and

I heard an interesting quote tonight. If you are busy judging, you can't love. When I heard it, I reflected on it and responded by saying no wonder Islamists and Conservatives are so hostile, they're too busy judging everyone who doesn't look like them, talk like them, think like them.

You have an issue with other people's tone?

First of all, I'm not angry in either post which is what I was complaining about. Second, it's your tactic I'm speaking out against, not your IDEAS!

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

First of all, I'm not angry in either post which is what I was complaining about. Second, it's your tactic I'm speaking out against, not your IDEAS!

I guess you believe your tone isn't angry in this post either? :lol:

A double-standard is a wonderful thing.

Please point to a specific example of my personal tactics you are speaking out against. Not me as a "conservative", but my actual posts.

BC_chick · December 22, 2006

The big difference at the end of the day though is quite simple. Israel wants peace... it's a 'Western' nation in all typical senses of the word, they want to run their economy, go to work, retire. Hamas and their buddies have been very outspoken saying they will only be satisfied with the destruction of Israel.

Hamas needs to go though. They cannot be recognized as a valid government. Hamas is solely in power to destroy Israel, and that's not acceptable.

Between the three issues I brought up, gays, environment, and foreign policy, I can't believe it's Israel that is gaining momentum. Especially when there's another foreign policy which affects Canadians directly - Afghanistan. But since we're here, I might as well comment.

I saw a demonstration on you tube with a map of Israel in 1948, 1967, and then compared to the part of WB and Gaza that was offered to Palestinians in 2000 and again in 2006. The area of Israel is getting bigger and bigger. "Almost" as big as the original vision of Greater Israel that the founders of Zionism requested from the British Majesty from the Mandate of Palestine.

STudies have shown an Israeli-bias in American news-media compared to European media's handling of the ME conflict. Canada has its own news source, but we do get a lot of our information from the US. Ever wonder why 67% of the US supported Israel last summer, compared to 50% of Canadians, vs. 12% Spain, 17% in England and similar statistics in France and Germany?

I'm not saying you're "wrong," our sources of information give us Israel's talking points with Israel being the good guy attacked for no reason, and your post proves it. But if you think logically about the situation, as someone else also pointed out, if they really wanted peace they would not continue expanding their territory. Lieberman is the only one that says out loud what many Israelis believe, that Palestinians have to leave all of Israel. That's ethnic cleansing and it is in direct conflict of the what the original Balfour Declaration said about the Jewish land giving equal respect to all religion and the inhabitants of the land.

Hamas did not say they would never accept Israel, they said they would not recognize it as a prerequisite to negotiations. Who can blame them? Let's say they do and end up getting nowhere like Abbas (and even Arafat in the end). What then? Would you lose your only bargaining chip?

BC_chick · December 22, 2006

First of all, I'm not angry in either post which is what I was complaining about. Second, it's your tactic I'm speaking out against, not your IDEAS!

I guess you believe your tone isn't angry in this post either?

A double-standard is a wonderful thing.

Please point to a specific example of my personal tactics you are speaking out against. Not me as a "conservative", but my actual posts.

Your personal tactic that did not sit well with me is the one where you quoted from - where you were telling me what I should and should not be concerned with. What kind of debating tactic is that? But the one that really set me off what they guy who said I'm not well-informed such because I don't think like him.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

Partial answer: Israel persists in an illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, preventing the Palestinian people from exercising their inherent right to self-determination.

Partial response. As a sovereign nation Israel has an inherent right to defend themselves.

Irrelevant.

Do explain the bigotry? It was bigoted to put a vote to Parliament?

Yes. The promise to bring it up in Parliament again was inspired by the bigotry of those who demanded it. I name it bigotry because there was no rational public policy basis for objecting to SSM. Therefore, the only explanation for the objection was bigotry.

Acquiesing to bigotry by making the promise was either in line with Harper's own views, or it was a cynical abuse of individuals' rights for political gain.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

Your personal tactic that did not sit well with me is the one where you quoted from - where you were telling me what I should and should not be concerned with. What kind of debating tactic is that? But the one that really set me off what they guy who said I'm not well-informed such because I don't think like him.

It's in the thread if this quote exists. I didn't tell you what you could or couldn't be concerned with. That's the problem with generalizing about people as a group. It can lead to a tendency to blame them for things they didn't do.

So you were "set off" but still take "Conservatives and Islamists" to task for being angry? tsk tsk tsk

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

Yes. The promise to bring it up in Parliament again was inspired by the bigotry of those who demanded it. I name it bigotry because there was no rational public policy basis for objecting to SSM. Therefore, the only explanation for the objection was bigotry.
Acquiesing to bigotry by making the promise was either in line with Harper's own views, or it was a cynical abuse of individuals' rights for political gain.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If you consider people of faith following their religious beliefs to be bigotted then so be it.

Please don't speak about rationality. You clearly despise Stephen Harper and won't give him credit for anything.

PS. Why is Israel's right to self-defence irrelevant? For somebody claiming to be a defender of rationality that's a pretty irrational and petulant dismissal of a very serious right of nations.

White Doors · December 22, 2006

Israel withdrew from Gaza. What good did that do? They got missles in response. Studies have also shown that UN aid money for the Palestinians is being misappropriated to kill Israeli's and brainwash Palestinian children to believe that jews are sub-human. Israel would be very willing to dismantle all the settlements if they could get peace. They can't. They will probably dismantle the settlements anyways. BTW do you know HOW Israel came to control the West bank and Gaza strip? Do you know the history of wars that it has defended itself against?

On your opnion polls in Euroope, does it surprise you that the land of the holocaust still maintains anti-semitism to this day?

And you can't take issue with Hamas not recognizing Israel's right to exist as mandated by the UN? You can't 'blame' them for taking that stance?? WHY? Do you not see that when Fatah or Hamas are not killing their Jews they turn on each other? Can you not see that Palestine is a sick society? Can you not see how Hezbollah will use Lebanese civilians just to try and kill jews? Can you not see how Hamas is using Palestinian citizens to kill Jews?

Would you not agree that peace would be achieveable if only Israel's enemies recognized the jews were human and had a right to exist in Israel? Surely you can see this is a necessary pre-curser to ANY peace in the region. Only bigotry would have you answer no to this question.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

So you were "set off" but still take "Conservatives and Islamists" to task for being angry? tsk tsk tsk

Hey Ricki, why don't you try sticking to issues rather than picking fights?

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

Yes. The promise to bring it up in Parliament again was inspired by the bigotry of those who demanded it. I name it bigotry because there was no rational public policy basis for objecting to SSM. Therefore, the only explanation for the objection was bigotry.
Acquiesing to bigotry by making the promise was either in line with Harper's own views, or it was a cynical abuse of individuals' rights for political gain.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yes. What of it?

If you consider people of faith following their religious beliefs to be bigotted then so be it.

It doesn't matter what causes their bigotry. Whether it's religion or something else, we can't base choices on it.

Please don't speak about rationality.

I'm sorry the concept offends you, but I fully intend to speak about whatever I like.

You clearly despise Stephen Harper and won't give him credit for anything.

I'm not sure what makes that clear to you, but you are mistaken. I have given him credit for a couple of things.

PS. Why is Israel's right to self-defence irrelevant?

It was irrelevant as a response to an earlier point. Read the context, then you may be able to make an intelligible point about the exchange.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

Hey Ricki, why don't you try sticking to issues rather than picking fights?

Hey Figleaf, why don't you try being honest in your debating?

Would you like me like to the repeated times you have tried to pick a fight with me on this board?

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

Israel withdrew from Gaza. What good did that do? They got missles in response.

No. They got nothing from withdrawing, they were already in conflict with Palestinian fighters and that didn't change. The missiles are a response to an illegal occupation, not the the partial withdrawal.

The point of course, is that Israel shouldn't have expected anything from withdrawing from Gaza. Since they need to withdraw from all Palestinian territories, half measures won't cut ice.

Israel would be very willing to dismantle all the settlements if they could get peace.

You don't really believe that, do you?

BTW do you know HOW Israel came to control the West bank and Gaza strip? Do you know the history of wars that it has defended itself against?

I do. I suspect you don't.

Can you not see that Palestine is a sick society?

Anyone can see that. The problem is that some people won't recognize the causes or accept what the remedy must be.

Would you not agree that peace would be achieveable if only Israel's enemies recognized the jews were human and had a right to exist in Israel?

Clearly that is not the issue. Arafat recognized Israel and Israel kicked him in the teeth for his trouble.

Surely you can see this is a necessary pre-curser to ANY peace in the region.

It should be an integral element of any final peace treaty certainly. It should not be a precondition for negotiations.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

Hey Ricki, why don't you try sticking to issues rather than picking fights?

Hey Figleaf, why don't you try being honest in your debating?

I always am.

Would you like me like to the repeated times you have tried to pick a fight with me on this board?

Don't mistake taking you up on a fight with picking one. You're one of the most obnoxious posters here, but can quickly show a yellow streak when someone stands up to your nasty tricks.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

Don't mistake taking you up on a fight with picking one. You're one of the most obnoxious posters here, but can quickly show a yellow streak when someone stands up to your nasty tricks.

You are picking a fight sir.

Do explain why I am obnoxious?

You provide no support for your claims and resort to personal insults when pushed.

I tried to be reasonable with you.

You followed me around attacking me for over 20 posts one day to prove a point. The only point you proved is your intellectual weakness and how you are the true coward.

White Doors · December 22, 2006

Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian
identity serves only tactical purposes. The

founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool

in the continuing battle against Israel ...

-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head

of the PLO and member of its Executive

Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977

"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 A.D. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years...," the Muslim chairman of the Syrian Delegation attested in his remarks to the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919.3
The British Palestine Royal Commission reported in 1937 that "it is time, surely, that Palestinian 'citizenship' . . . should be recognized as what it is, as nothing but a legal formula devoid of moral meaning."4

The Land was named Palestina by he Romans to eradicate all trace of its Jewish history..."
It may seem inappropriate to have devoted so much time to "a situation which passed away two thousand years ago." But it is only politically that the defeat by Rome, and the scattering of the Jewish population, made a decisive change in the history of The Land. That which had been created by more than a thousand years of Jewish history [a thousand years before A.D. 135] remained, as did that which was beginning to be created in the thoughts of the young Christian Church.5

Many authorities have addressed the misconceptions surrounding the word Palestine. The name derived from "other migrants from the northwest, the Philistines. Though the latest arrivals, and though they only exercised control over the whole country for a few uncertain decades, they had been the cause of its name of Palestine. These Philistines were an Aegean people, driven out of Greece and Aegean islands around about 1300 B.C.E. They moved southward along the Asiatic coast and in about 1200 attempted to invade Egypt. Turned back, they settled in the maritime plain of southern 'Palestine', where they founded a series of city-states."6

The official adoption of the name Palestine in Roman usage to designate the territories of the former Jewish principality of Judea seems to date from after the suppression of the great Jewish revolt of Bar-Kokhba in the year 135 C.E.... it would seem that the name Judea was abolished ... and the country renamed Palestine or Syria Palestina, with the ... intention of obliterating its historic Jewish identity. The earlier name did not entirely disappear, and as late as the 4th century C.E. we still find a Christian author, Epiphanius, referring to "Palestine, that is, Judea."

In other words, it appears that Palestine never was an independent nation and the Arabs never named the land to which they now claim rights. Most Arabs do not admit so candidly that "Palestinian identity" is a maneuver "only for political reasons" as did Zuheir Muhsin. But the Arab world, until recently, itself frequently negated the validity of any claim of an "age-old Palestinian Arab" identity.

As you can see there really is not such thing as 'Palestinians' per se. It is merely a misnomer.

it is important however to understnad this to truly get a grasp of what is going on today.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

You are picking a fight sir.
Do explain why I am obnoxious?

Ah ah, that would be picking a fight.

You provide no support for your claims...

Which claims?

I tried to be reasonable with you.

When?

You followed me around attacking me for over 20 posts one day to prove a point.

False.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

As you can see there really is not such thing as 'Palestinians' per se. It is merely a misnomer.
it is important however to understnad this to truly get a grasp of what is going on today.

Bumf.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

You are picking a fight sir.

Do explain why I am obnoxious?

Ah ah, that would be picking a fight.

So the insult isn't picking a fight, but justifying the insult would be? Sounds like you have no basis for your foul words.

You provide no support for your claims...

Which claims?

Here are two unsubstantiated claims to start.

Claim #1.

Look, if Israel want peace, why is it building settlements on Palestinians' land?

The disputed land is not universally recognized as Palestinian. Or are you saying that Israel does not have a right to exist because of the nature of the original UN decision to grant a Jewish state?

Claim #2.

The widespread acceptance of "Destruction of Wealth" as a term in the financial services industry.

You followed me around attacking me for over 20 posts one day to prove a point.

False.

The date was November 5th. Here is the text of the PM you sent me after "putting me in my place".

Rickiboy, I'm getting the impression you don't care for having someone ready at the drop of a hat to make brief annoying comments on your every post.
Well wise up. That's exactly the kind of crap you've been doing.

Learn the Golden Rule.

You sir are the bully. Anymore attempted falsehoods you want me to catch you in?

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

So the insult isn't picking a fight, but justifying the insult would be? Sounds like you have no basis for your foul words.

PHEW! Good thing I didn't use any.

Here are two unsubstantiated claims to start.
Claim #1.

Look, if Israel want peace, why is it building settlements on Palestinians' land?

The disputed land is not universally recognized as Palestinian. Or are you saying that Israel does not have a right to exist because of the nature of the original UN decision to grant a Jewish state?

If I understand your first sentence there, you are saying that I'm making an implicit claim about who owns the territory, and that claim is unsubstantiated. Your complaint against common knowledge amounts to 'it's not universally recognized'. Pardon me if I don't regard that as bait worth rising to.

Your second sentence appears to be a complete non-sequitur, probably inserted to be deliberately annoying.

Claim #2.
The widespread acceptance of "Destruction of Wealth" as a term in the financial services industry.

I substantiated that and completely humiliated you in so doing. I'm amazed at what masochistic instinct would make you bring that up. You looked like quite the fool that day.

You followed me around attacking me for over 20 posts one day to prove a point.

False.

The date was November 5th. Here is the text of the PM you sent me ...

From "over 20 posts" down to one PM? Your house of cards collapses.

I remember our exchange quite well. There were a handful of posts where I intervened to alert you that your zealous pursuit of Gerryhatrick had become abusive and annoying.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

If I understand your first sentence there, you are saying that I'm making an implicit claim about who owns the territory, and that claim is unsubstantiated.

You made an explicit claim. You referred to *Israeli occumpation of Palestinian land*.

I substantiated that and completely humiliated you in so doing. I'm amazed at what masochistic instinct would make you bring that up. You looked like quite the fool that day.

Why don't you enlighten us with that substantiation again? Something tells me you'll brush this off because the proof you offered originally was so lacking.

From "over 20 posts" down to one PM? Your house of cards collapses.
I remember our exchange quite well. There were a handful of posts where I intervened to alert you that your zealous pursuit of Gerryhatrick had become abusive and annoying.

That was one PM. Again trying to change subject. No house of cards. Just your house of faleshoods. Gerryhatrick has been suspended. Nothing to do with me. Or maybe my zealousness was in the pursuit of a just end.

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

If I understand your first sentence there, you are saying that I'm making an implicit claim about who owns the territory, and that claim is unsubstantiated.

You made an explicit claim. You referred to *Israeli occumpation of Palestinian land*.

The passage you quoted said: "Look, if Israel want peace, why is it building settlements on Palestinians' land?"

If you must attempt to vex and bebother me, please at least try to be accurate.

I substantiated that and completely humiliated you in so doing. I'm amazed at what masochistic instinct would make you bring that up. You looked like quite the fool that day.

Why don't you enlighten us with that substantiation again? Something tells me you'll brush this off because the proof you offered originally was so lacking.

No, I'll brush it off because the overwhelming substantiation I provided is available to anyone interested on the relevant thread. If you want to disprove that, please feel free to post a link and look like a fool yet again.

Gerryhatrick has been suspended. Nothing to do with me. Or maybe my zealousness was in the pursuit of a just end.

You tell us.

Ricki Bobbi · December 22, 2006

You made an explicit claim. You referred to *Israeli occumpation of Palestinian land*.

Seems like a pretty explicit statement of Palestinian land. Remember you questioned my calling it disputed land. Are you trying to get away from your falsehood now?

No, I'll brush it off because the overwhelming substantiation I provided is available to anyone interested on the relevant thread. If you want to disprove that, please feel free to post a link and look like a fool yet again.

Exactly. You brushed it off. Just finished finals and you have time to pick fights again? To prove your superiority in your imaginary world where your falsehoods aren't easily seen through? Have fun sir. Your agreements are without foundation. When you do move out of your parents' basement you will find the world a much harsher place.

I have stayed well within the rules of the board. I will not continue to engage you, as it is tiring to both myself and all other thoughtful posters on the board.

The last word is yours sir! Congratulations!

Figleaf · December 22, 2006

You made an explicit claim. You referred to *Israeli occumpation of Palestinian land*.

Seems like a pretty explicit statement of Palestinian land. Remember you questioned my calling it disputed land. Are you trying to get away from your falsehood now?

????

What falsehood? You're making less sense by the moment.

No, I'll brush it off because the overwhelming substantiation I provided is available to anyone interested on the relevant thread. If you want to disprove that, please feel free to post a link and look like a fool yet again.

Exactly. You brushed it off.

Please feel free to post a link to that thread and look like a fool yet again

Your agreements are without foundation.

:lol:

When you do move out of your parents' basement you will find the world a much harsher place.

:lol: :lol:

White Doors · December 22, 2006

Alright Children, take it to PM's again will you?

Some people would like to have a serious discussion here. We really aren't interested in how you two broke up.

Intelligent response to my post there figleaf btw.

mikedavid00 · December 22, 2006

"I think they already have worked."
I'm talking about the long-term plan, a little too early to talk isn't it?

Well since Trudeau it doesn't seem that any long plan term has worked. Atleast we now have some sort of plan to eleminate our debt by 2015 and environmental plans by 2050 which is more than realistic.

"Do you support Islamic terrorists?"
This is exactly the black/white thinking I was talking about.

We can all go into shades of grey and chase our tails. But things don't get done like this. It's a positive to have a firm stance on things. Try to date a guy and have him look too deep into the relationship and treat everything as a shade of grey. It usually doesn't work out well. Meet a man who has a firm stance and believes in commitment; you'll have a better outcome with black and white.

We have all gone into shades of grey and acklowedge that both sides are in the wrong. But one side is more wrong than the other. Isreal is the only democratic country in the area that does not want to wipe other poeple off the face of the earth. The same cannot be said for a lot of it's neibours. Thus, we support the side that we hold most true to our values at home. Islamic countries will support Jihad and side with the terrorists.

Lines need to be drawn in the sand. Understanding and love and peace doesn't work in the real world, but only in ideolegy.

Yes, believe me, I do understand the terrists and why they do not like Isreal. Yes I agree that Isreal has broken agreements and rules. Yes I am more than aware Isreal is like a 51st US state. We all know this. But we cannot let ourselves be sympathetic, suppprtive, or imparsial to terrorism. No matter what Isreal does, they will always be attacked because kids have been bred since childhood and brainwashed to wipe Jews off the face of the earth which is wrong. There's nothing Canada can do about this but openly condemn this terrorism and support the state of Isreal.

And for you to find this a negative thing is unfortunate.

"Its' too bad, becaue there are WAY, WAY more important things to worry about here in Canada than those 2 last things you listed."
Environment is a HUGE thing, and gays isn't about gays, it's about equal rights for all.

Gays have all the equal rights that straight people do under marriage. The enironment is not a huge thing. Canada makes only 5% of green house gasses and are not even in the top polluting countries. We should worry about our own waste and polution sure, but that's being done right now. Soon electirc cars will be common place and coal burning plants will be shut down. these things take time. Things are fine for Canada. There's nothing else we can do.

"Is the envionrment and gays THAT imporant to you over money directly in your pocket and help if you have children?"
Hell yes, I'll gladly pay a little extra now to make sure there is an earth LEFT for my children.

Canadad is a clean, environmentally safe country that has almost nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. Most of our land is vacant and non-poluting. The sky is not falling, the world is not going to end. The above statement is the reason why I said that you do not have knoweldge on a lot of topics. If you did, you'd realize Canada is an extremely clean and friendly country that in no way is creating the worlds polution. You'd also know that Kyoto uses questionable computer software that many see errors in to determine green house gasses. Many think it's the sun rays causing this which is a normal cycle of the earth. In the 1980's it was the 'global cooling' ice age, now it's 'global warming'. It's questionable at best, either way, Canada plays little role in these problems which compared to other countries.

"You shouldn't concern yourself with the world, focus on home, focus on Canada. we have many problems here and I would consider a few crisis situations on our basic services."
Read the subject line, foreign policy, social policy, and fiscal policy. You don't like my views fine. But please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be concerned about.

It's a civic duty as a Canadian residing in Canada to vote on Canadian issues. You should be concerned formost with your fellow citizen dying on a hostpital waiting list or waiting for an organ transplant. That should be your greatest concern - not Isreal or China's polution which is out of our hands.

"Yes. Becaue you most likely live in a Liberal/NDP strong hold as I do."
No actually, last two election it was lib, before conservative for a very long time. But then again, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper are two very different people.

I agree. What riding are you in? It doesn't sound like your in a high immigrant area.

"And how many of those people are immgirants/visible minorities? Answer honestly."
Honestly, zero. But sounds like your mind's made up already.

So you are telling me that you work for a large company with 200 working people people, are in BC, that hate Harper, yet they are all white Canadians? That sounds very suspect indeed. Do you live in Camloops?

"So the most important things in these peoples lives are gays and anti-Isreal.. Pitty."
No, it's about a neutral, honest, peaceful foreign policy and equal rights at home. There you go again with the black and white thinking. No wonder you love Harper.

Why should we be neutral? Yes I understand that 'one persons terrorist is another persons freedomfighter argument. It doesn't hold much weight. We live in a violent, cruel world. There are agressors, and people that do not want trouble and want peace.

Isreal does not want trouble, they want peace. We should back the people who want peace. We should not be sympathising with terrorist agressors.

"I also don't think Canadians are very socially progressive. That is what the gov't wants you to beleive. I would put it at around 50/50 progressive. "
Okay, that's why Harper's approval rating shot up the roof initially with his fiscal policies and started dropping to half of that when his social policies started coming out.

Are you sure the Lebanon incedant has nothign to do with that?

"I also don't think it's the govt's role in any shap, way, or form to dictate to us what our social culture is about. "
A Christian Evangelical DOESN'T tell us what our social culture should be about? LOL okay.

Another athiest, far left, conspericy theory, Michael Morre loving Lib. Lol.. all the same really. The culture of our country should be for the people to decide. Not for a person named Trudeau to write his cultural ideas down on a napkin.

"People in BC simply don't want to assimilate. They have no need or desire to want to be Canadian or speak English."
Maybe the first-generations, but every second-generation Chinese, Indian, Middle-Eastern is as Canadian and "English-speaking" as anyone else.

I disagree. Then tell me where there are so many daughters in Surrey getting arranged marriages to other indo-Canadian second generations?

Who's the racist? Why are there so many of them with 'nick names' to describe white Canadians? Why is there a stadium packed with 30,000 people, mostly second generation to see a bollywood actor from India?