Leaderboard

The ongoing protests in BC, Ontario and elsewhere show the depths of ignorance, stupidity and vapid self-indulgence we've come to expect from much of the activist and progressive populations, along with the sheer bloody cowardice of our governments. Recall, the pipeline being protested was signed off on by the elected chiefs and band councils of the tribes in the area. The 'hereditary' chiefs tried to get elected in opposition to the pipeline, and failed. From which we can determine the natives in the area didn't care what they had to say and wanted the pipeline and the money and jobs that would bring. No matter. A chance to protest pipelines?! Progressives aren't gonna miss that if they have the slightest excuse! Watch them standing their, chins elevated, filled with the sense of righteous self-granted nobility and arrogance you only see from those with an enormous regard for themselves. They're 'standing with the natives'! Well, not the actual natives, just the 'hereditary chiefs', who should be in charge, you know! This democracy stuff was imposed by colonialism (yes, they say this. The bunch sitting on the rail tracks are much the same. Some of them are Mohawks, Many aren't. The Mohawk chief says he didn't authorize any protest and neither did the band council. No matter. The OPP is standing around shaking in terror at the thought of having to say "Boo' to a native. Meanwhile in Vancouver, the police arrested angry people trying to pull down the barricades natives and their far left allies erected in the middle of the road. Arrest the protestors? Oh no! The horror! The horror! Run away! Run away! (that seems to be the motto of both Canada's governments and its police departments whenever native protesters show up). I'm reminded of a movie called Soylent Green, a cult hit. In one of the scenes, these huge garbage trucks with their scoopers on the ground in front of them move into protesting crowds, scoop them up and dump them into the back of their trucks, to be carted out and processed as food. Excellent idea! I'm sure they'd all be delighted at being recycled into dog food. They're all environmentalists, after all. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stephen-ledrew-canada-should-enforce-the-law-with-wetsuweten-anti-pipeline-protests?video_autoplay=true

Trudeau hammered for incompetence on Corona virus plan / action....duh !

He wasn't sent there. He demanded to go fight with his father because he didn't want to be left behind with the women. His 2 older brothers had already graduated from Al Quaeda training and he wanted to be like the rest of his family - terrorists. He has never renounced his terrorist beliefs.

So with the blockades of railroad crossings and entrances to government buildings across the country, we are seeing an alliance between radical environmentalists and unelected leaders of a tribe, the Wet’suwet’en. The protests are against a natural gas pipeline that has already been approved by the elected chiefs of the 20 bands in the contested area. These unelected chiefs who do not support Canadian law because they don’t recognize Canada are supported by anti-pipeline environmentalists. They do not recognize that transporting oil and natural gas by pipelines is safer and cleaner than doing it by rail or truck. They want to “shut down” Canada, yet there is no clear platform. No doubt they want severe restrictions on fossil fuels and extremely high carbon taxes, but not for the Wet’suwet’en people, who they think should pay no taxes and carry on living with all the comfy carbon-based amenities on a racially pure land, exclusive of non-Indigenous people and free of pipelines. Is this not part of the same trend we’re seeing in places like Hungary, where the Greens propose carbon taxes for the workers to pay for an exclusive, ethnically pure state? Thoughts?

It has nothing to do with democracy. If somebody is breaking the law, the law has to be enforced. Like I've already stated, I'm sure if protesters were shutting down abortion clinics, you'd have a much different attitude.

For those who don't get it, the reason people on this forum can't STFU about Muslims is that people on this forum can't help defending egregious and barbaric behaviour. It's not that hard. Honestly, it's like asking why people on this forum can't STFU about Trump.

It IS burdensome, and more so to cultures that are actually under threat. Both aboriginal and French culture have been suppressed and systematically marginalized by dominant cultures, and the Canadian culture has been also. How a society sees values, sex education being part of that, is very important to them. I thought about this a long time ago and came to the following conclusions on my own values: - All cultures naturally melt and meld together and eventually fade away - Preserving history is a good thing - If you want to promote a culture, it's better to do so with positive actions rather than restricting/suppressing others - Managing all the contradictions in these statements to produce an agreeable result is difficult politics, but good things are often difficult to achieve

Does Prince Harry count as an "entitled refugee"? Sorry, he was the one that came to mind. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-canada-jobs-1.5429202

To some of us, this is just another footnote in history, but to my darling wife, it is a sad reminder of what one of her beloved aunts survived. She also suffered serious health problems directly as a result of her time there, as no doubt many others did. Sometimes I worry that the constant and consistent rehash of the Holocaust risks fomenting the anger of the skinhead types, and that is no doubt true. But, if you have EVER heard first hand accounts of the Nazi death camps or for that matter the Japanese occupation of China (as I have), then you know that these stories really MUST be told.

The epic failure here is on the part of government...provincial and federal. Clueless...leaderless...gutless.

I did just that LOL, Wet’suwet’en Nation member Shirley Wilson supports #CoastalGasLink If you cut through the doublespeak and media obfuscation, all the protests and blockades are based on the opposition of five people - 5, Five unelected Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs Vs the rights of 37 million Cdns. Canada is a joke, Trudeau is a joke. Meanwhile The President of Senegal announced that Justin Trudeau is helping Senegal develop its industries “du pétrole, du gaz ... “

Maybe, it's the corporation that makes hazmat suits that are behind this?

It absolutely is worse than any other religion. Even high profile atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens recognize that fact.

Talk about twisting: I said Islam allows more than one wife, allows men to beat their wives, often forces hijab, etc. And it is the offering of these choices to men that makes it a harmful religion. And you replied this: If you can't debate with honesty, then what are you doing here?

Well at least we agree on that. Neither of us has any proof. One of us has a very reasonable theory, backed by general scientific principles, while the other has a crackpot theory reinforced by some old book or other.

What give up my viagra?

They don’t really need to worry about that because there was no abuse of power. Funds were released without any conditions.

I'm struggling to comprehend what the ardent defenders of Islam are trying to establish with all this stuff about rape. There is simply no argument that women who are sexually harassed/assaulted in Western countries are fantastically better served by government agencies and public/social views than in Islamic countries. The former face incredible danger if they even dare to report their rape - from their own families. They could be shunned or even killed for damaging the family's honor. Their claims are unlikely to be taken seriously by the authorities, and they're likely to have to face harsh interviewing from men untrained in sexual assault investigations. That's presuming their country doesn't operate on the Islamic rule which says that in law a woman's worth is only one quarter that of a man's. If that's the case then her word means essentially nothing unless she can find male witnesses to the rape willing to testify. I recall the teenage girl in Iran who got pregnant after her uncle raped her. She told this to the authorities, but since her word was only one quarter his all they did was treat it as a confession that she had sex with her uncle - a married man - and promptly executed her. Oh, it was rape? Says who? Sorry, no male witnesses? Then death to you. If anything, the insistence on trying to, by torturous logic, insinuate that sexual assault on women is in any way treated equivalent to that in Muslim countries, or that we even know the rate in Muslim countries, is evidence of the deep-seated fanaticism of the Left which I mentioned in the opening post. They simply cannot bring themselves to accept any criticism of Islam or Islamic countries because the 'religion' of the Left has come to be anti-racism, and they see any and all criticism of minority identity groups as racist. The fact that Muslims are not at all a minority in the world is irrelevant to them. They're a minority here, and therefore any criticism of the culture or values of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims has to be fought. Their thinking goes no deeper than this. Which is what you typically see in religious fanatics.

That's quite the claim. Cite required.

Women in Western countries have a LOT more recourse when they are raped than those in Islamic countries. Yes, sometimes it's difficult to feel that full justice has been done. But at least women who are raped in Western countries have access to police and legal teams. They have access to counselling and medical assistance after being raped. They do not have to marry their rapist. They are not honour killed by their families for being raped. Western communities do not stone women who get raped. Children who are raped are not considered "unmarriageable" for the rest of their lives. What kind of person are you who romanticizes Islamic society so much that you do not see the difference?

I have a Jewish aunt by marriage that was aboard the MS St Louis. She ended-up in France and apparently got aboard the final ship out to the USA before Case Yellow started. She made it to NYC and still lives their to this day. There are many video recordings of her telling her experiences, already. Plus she does things for local schools in that regard. But, she's getting very old. A notable thing she did...other than survive...was act as a consultant for the movie Voyage of the Damned. But, the Voyage of the St Louis is nothing compared to what happened later. Then, there's my erstwhile German uncle who was in the SS (Obersturmführer...or Lieutenant) and knee deep in the Holocaust in the Balkans/Hungary. He was captured by the British while trying to get to Switzerland (after ditching the uniform), but cheated a death sentence by knowing several languages including English. This allowed him to be a trial translator in turn for a POW sentence in Canada at a place called Seebe, Alberta. There the POWs...mainly officers...were put to logging until released. He never left Canada. He died in the 1980s, but I'm sure they'd have made a fuss about him being here these days seeing how they go after ancient camp guards and such still. I still have the medals he managed to keep. I was also surprised to find looking on Yad Vashem...that I had lost over a dozen German relatives to the Holocaust despite not being Jewish. However, marrying Jewish girls was enough to get you hauled away as problematic by the Gestapo. Germany & Austria...perhaps a few others...mark all these citizens....Jewish and non-Jewish...that were victims of the SS with brass tiles known as Stolperstein...stumbling stones. All the ones I found were sent to the Minsk ghetto where they were apparently liquidated in several 'aktions'...where SS men came into the ghetto and just shot everyone.

You conclude this once they've been convicted of committing terrorism. We still subscribe to innocent until proven guilty in Canada.

Ah but that's the new favorite word for the left and its activists! There's no more disapproval or disagreement or even dislike! There's no judgement based on what you've seen and heard and experienced of a given group. There's no wariness or doubt or suspicion about a group's demonstrated behaviour, no prejudice. Either you fully approve of, like and admire a given group or you 'hate' them. Apparently the Left finds this a more useful pejorative to use for anyone who disagrees with them as it evokes a red faced angry/furious, raging person who isn't thinking logically. As opposed to someone who has considered the available information and made a decision as to what is in their own and their country's best interests.

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees". They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion. They are an embarrassment to our country. How some people can defend them is beyond me.

15 year olds know what's right and wrong. 15 year olds know that murder is wrong. Give me a break with the brainwashing bullshit. It's just an excuse.

Trudeau settled out of court because, as always, he sided with the terrorist (or 'fighter', as Trudeau calls them).

Oh, too bad . Guess I'll go hang myself in the barn. Canada, by any standards, is one of the best places in the world to live. So much so that a case could be made that anyone who doesn't like living here probably wouldn't like living anywhere. That said, better a sister in a whore-house than a brother in the Conservative Party.

Trudeau delivers more meaningless platitudes about dialogue and sharing while the protestors give him the middle finger. Even the Mohawk chief has said the blockade should end, but those boys are having fun and they've got Trudeau in a box. No doubt they think they can squeeze a few million out of him to let the trains go on. Trudeau's words later were kind of indicative of his personality when he decided to hold a meeting with opposition leaders - but not Andrew Scheer, the leader of the opposition. He said Scheer disqualified himself because of his 'unacceptable speech'. I know Trudeau deeply admires China's basic dictatorship but he doesn't get to say anyone's speech is unacceptable because it isn't up to him to accept it or not. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-on-the-blockades-we-need-to-find-a-solution-and-we-need-to-find-it-now?video_autoplay=true

So Trudeau is off to Africa on a desperate quest to get a security council seat. He will meet with African leaders where a little 'quid pro quo' will be exchanged, mostly involving millions and millions of dollars in Canadian tax dollars. The Liberals have been campaigning desperately for this seat for years. It's not that it will do anything useful for Canada, of course. It's because the last time around the Conservatives put little effort into it, so the Liberals used it to accuse them of having outraged the world and alienated all sorts of important countries. So winning it this time would let Trudeau elevate his chin again and pose for pictures like a noble God as he says, yet again "Canada is back!" And if that costs tens or hundreds of millions in bribe money, that's well worth it as far as he's concerned. Of course, bribes wouldn't be necessary if Trudeau and his arrogant, obnoxious virtue signalling hadn't pissed off so many other countries. Arguably the five most influential countries in the world (US, Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia) all despise him and none have much, if any respect for Canada right now. Nor have we done much to match his sanctimonious 'we're back' rhetoric as we have no military to engage in peacekeeping and he's not inclined to give money to foreign countries unless it helps him look good at home. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeaus-ill-timed-and-costly-quest-for-a-un-security-council-seat

It's not a very good answer, though, is it? It doesn't actually argue that the grooming gangs didn't/dont exist, or that they aren't of the cultural and religious makeup previously reported. It takes issue with terms (Grooming gangs? Okay, call them something else) and seeks to deflect criticism. (People from the subcontinent had a hard time in the UK when they emigrated back in the sixties (sure) - Right wing extremists latch onto criticism of minorities (absolutely) - White folk do it too, just look at Jimmy Saville! (no kidding)) Basically it seeks to excuse the actions of the "grooming gangs" without actually saying they didn't do it, by stating that focusing on the fact that they did is the result of racism. Even though the report it decries was written by Pakistani men. It also takes a typical attitude to the phrase "political correctness" as though to denigrate that phrase is enough to deny the facts that the reporting on and prosecution of grooming gangs was limited by those who were afraid of being accused of racism, or cultural insensitivity, or stoking fires in divided communities. Again, call it whatever you want. I've yet to read anything that says Pakistani Muslims are the only ones committing sex crimes in the UK. The facts are, though, that gangs of Pakistani Muslims abused poor, working class white girls in many cities across northern England, and their religion and culture "very likely" contributed to their actions. And attitudes amongst white authority figures contributed to that abuse going on longer and further than it should have, once it was exposed. There's nothing wrong with reporting those facts. But in the end, it's quotes like this ‘[i]t is, of course, perfectly possible to be racist in the name of feminism or misogynist while laying claim to antiracism’ that indicate the motive of the author. I mean, she gets to decide, right? Those feminists and liberals who did seek to expose the truth are only "supposedly" feminists and liberals.

I personally think the idea of using military as police is not efficient anyways. I was forced to do it indirectly in Israel and I can tell you from my perspective no soldier wants to police civilians. They want nothing to do with it. I know soldiers spit on the face equally by both sides in the area they had to police. People do not understand soldiers are trained to fight soldiers and having to go after terrorists dressed as civilians or even real citizens protesting is not something anyone wants to do as a soldier although I defer to soldiers on it. I did volunteer medic stuff so I never carried a gun and only dug toilets or pulled nails out of barefeet or cleaned rat bites and stupid shit like that but I know the soldiers I knew hated it. They signed up to deal with other soldiers not arresting screaming pregnant women smuggling guns. But such is life. In this case, the police are in a no win situation. The politicians are hiding and without going into a long explanation no one wants to hear the laws are completely unclear as to a conflict between certain aboriginal rights to land and pipelines and so even tough what native peoples are doing blocking the trains is criminal, it is related to unclear laws and therefore political considerations that remain unresolved so Trudeau hides from them as he has since he got re-elected. You notice since re-election he no longer grabs the camera and has delegated anything controversial to his ministers especially that little munchkin lady and Deputy PM now. Garneau the Transport Minister has no directives you can tell in his vague answers. The bottom line is Indigenous Affairs not Garneau has to deal with this and they are afraid because the indigenous nations are split on this issue with some in favour and some against and then we have American natives who have come up to Canada and they believe under the Jay's Treaty anywhere in North America is their land and they have the right to protest. It will have to be settled as millions of dollars in unrelated commerce are being impacted negatively by the rail block. I think politically arresting people might inflame a situation and make martyrs and make it worse so they are hoping for cooler heads and diplomacy at this point but it does not seem anyone with any true authority for the feds is doing anything. Calling it a provincial police matter is a bloody cop out if you excuse the expression and asking the military to force there way into the situation is not going to work. Asking soldiers to engage in action againstthe people they take an oath to protect is not what they asked for. I defer to Dougie and Army on it. I do not mean to talk for them.

Also bear in mind that the CAF is bound at all times by international law and the laws of armed conflict The central pillars of which are military necessity, proportionality and collateral mitigation. This means that the military can only use military force against a military threat, so unless your protestors are heavily armed, there would be no mandate to use military force against them, so again, it isn't actually an escalation above police force to deploy the military in Aid to the Civil Power.

As far as I can tell Canada lost last time because we were considered too friendly to Israel by the Muslim block.

Real Canadian identity has been erased, so Anti-Americanism fills that void, without it, Canada would have no identity. That's why Canadians act like this.

I posted this at CBC...imagine Frank singing. -------------------------- Those fingers ripping papers in her chair.Into that guy's back she does stare.That flipping out in public fare...It's a witch-hunt.And she's got no more recourse for it,The Senate simply wouldn't fall for it.No one to burn, oh what to do?'Cause it's a witch hunt,A failed witch hunt,And although she knows it's a game for fools.He arouses a political need in her...Without him she'd have nothing to do. ------------------------------- Oh the protests! "Brigaded"...lol...triggering that lot is fun.

They need to slow down spending and balance the budget first. After that, any tax increases should go soley to debt reduction.

It's my first caucus! They just misspelled circus, right? Enormous fun, but I have no idea what's going on.

Actually, they come from Muslim websites and discussion forums. You know, Muslims themselves. Yes, I agree their interpretations are extreme - but Islam lends itself to that. ETA: It's a bit ironic that you're agreeing with the woman who believes women should be covered at all times and can only shake hands with gloves on, maybe.

The religion you are referring to does not force women to wear anything, marry at 9, inherit less than half .... etc. Those are all choices made by some of the people who practice the religion. For example, my Muslim sister owns the apartment she bought in Alexandria outright; her husband's name is not on it. She can will it to whomever she wants - even if it leaves him on the street, and if they divorce he gets none of it unless she chooses otherwise. My sister's stepdaughter is in her mid-20s, still not married. My sister is the only wife, not one of her husband's 4 brothers have more than one wife, and all of the daughters have graduated university before marriage for them has been considered. Your question would seek to exclude them, based only on the fact that they're Muslim, even though they'd fit very well with your 'cultural values'. Just like Christians, Muslims come in many different flavors and practices; your suggestion that asking someone if they follow a certain religion as a way of determining if they'd be a cultural fit for Canada is extremely discriminatory.

Pretty hard to make a charge of rape in a Muslim country because it requires the testimony of four male eyewitnesses, one of the reasons why rape happens in Islamic countries. There is a directive of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government in Pakistan that schoolgirls cover up in order to prevent “unethical incidents” which is also similar to Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei who said n 2018 that Islam holds the answer to the problems of sexual mistreatment of women in Western societies. If women were to wear the hijab, he argued, they would be spared such depraved behavior.

Not criminal....not worse than previous presidents....not impeachable. There is no dictatorship if elected Senators acquit per constitution. Emotional hate for Trump does not equal political reality.

Yes you were. "All the time", eh? You're a liar for Islam. but you're in the right thread - The Mob of Ignorance

Others died in the process but still does not negate the fact that many allies including civilians , Russians, gypsies, etc lost lives. It was inevitable and must not be forgotten.

Pacifists think they're honorable because they don't want to fight or hurt anyone. I used to be a pacifist. But there's no such thing as pacificism when others are wanting and trying to kill you or take your land and resources etc, which has been the case since the beginning of history and has never ceased to this day. All it means is you're happy to not fight while you allow others to fight for you to protect you. It means you're naive and hypocritical, whether you know it or not. If we didn't have a military and the US/NATO didn't protect us, China or Russia or whomever else would invade us and take our land. If you think that if we're just nice enough and try to make peace with the people that want to kill us & take our stuff and that we'll all be friends you're wrong. Sometimes it can work, but many other times not. Chamberlain tried to make peace with Hitler and appease him, it didn't work and nothing the UK did would changed Hitler's ambitions. Obama tried to hit the "reset button" with Putin, it didn't work. Sometimes there's just people with bad intentions out there. Your grandparents didn't defeat tyranny with hugs & handshakes. I think you're a kind-hearted person, but you have a very naive and unrealistic view of how the world and human beings work, as is the case for many leftists. Look at Jimmy Carter, a very nice man, but too nice. America's enemies took advantage of his kindness and ate him alive. Happened with Obama to an extent too. Being nice all the time doesn't work, some people will take advantage. Being mean and aggressive all the time doesn't work either, everyone will hate you & never trust you. That's why you need to be somewhere in the middle, which is assertive, in other words you can be nice as long as others are too but you also need to stand up for yourself when people try to push you around. This is as true in life as it is in politics.

“The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here.” ---Adam Schiff

Confronting poorly articulated ideas which are stupid to begin with is rarely much effort.

Your sorrow is selective. What was not a good idea was Argus presuming to lecture me about anti-semitism and telling me I must negatively generalize about all Muslims because they hate Jews which is precisely what he did which then made me morally obliged as a Jew to explain it is precisely because Nazis negatively generalized about all we Jews that for anyone to tell us to do the same thing to others is absurd and just outright ignorant. You want to be sorry, then start by trying to understand when and why I raised the history of Nazism. I only did so when Argus played the Jew card suggesting as a Jew I should know certain Muslims hate Jews. My raising it was as an analogy of direct relevance to the consequences that arise when any of us define an entire people as undesireable. If you can not understand that with due respect it might be good idea you tried rather than try indirectly to suggest I unfairly called Argus a Nazi. I have challenged his hateful negative generalizations of an entire people as a Jew whose family history was the target of it, as a Zionist faced with it as an impairment to achieving peace with certain Muslims and as a human being.

To summarize you have in your responses presumed OP to lecture me and Jews and others that: 1- we must assume the worst in all of a people if many or some of that people engage in evil; 2-engage in process 1 to assume all Muslims have negative attributes undesireable in Canadian society and so we should ban Muslims from Canada; 3-that we Jews and our leaders who disagree with you as to 1 and 2 are afraid to be called Islamaphobic and are dupes of Islamic extremists. You have also evidenced in your responses to me: 4-you have no basis of extrapolation for any assumptions you have made to assume the negative generalizations you have made and you continue to be unable to understand your conclusion that we should hate all Muslims because many of them hate us is not based on denying many hate us (that was never challenged) but that it makes no logical sense because it simply generates the same hatred back in response, i.e., negative generalizations to rationalize discrimination against an entire category of people. Further and ironically you claim your Muslim adversaries hate in disprorportionate amounts, but you do the exact same thing by assuming an entire Muslim population is undesireable. In addition, you started off claiming Muslims should be banned for being more likely to be terrorists and then when provided counter arguments to show you had no statistics for that justify such assumptions you deflected and switched the focus to having us believe your true concern about Muslims and why they shoudl be banned is because they hate Jews so you now present numbers showing Muslims hate Jews when that was never the issue of this thread or contested. Interestingly you have never come on this forum once and started a thread saying lets said ban anti-semites from coming to Canada It is only when challenged about your negative generalizations about Muslims, you then raise dit, and then only in relation to Muslims, no other peoples. So Argus. You would have us believe what...that you are so concerned about Jews in Canada this justifies your negative stereotypes of Muslims but no other anti semites? I call that out and challenge you for using anti-semitism as a shield, a pretense an object of exploitation to justify your own hatred of Muslims. You don`t speak for any Jew about anti-semitism and your presumption you can dictate to me or any Jew why we are hated let alone why we must hate Muslims or anyone is the kind of presumptuous and patronizing tone that gives birth to hatred and negative generalizations and so policies that led to residential schools or the holocaust and so many other acts of legislated discrimination. Further your previous denial of anti-semitism and its role in enabling Nazism and then trying to back track saying oh you didn`t deny it, just caled it secondary shows your ignore of Jewish history and anti-semitism you presume to lecture about. Secondary..you called it secondary...bull shit, you only called it secondary after being called out and when you did that you showed you continue to trivialize anti semitism and what it is capable of doing and how the thought process is no different from the one you are engaging in now. Most ironic is you quote Pew Polls to justify hatred. Long before the Pew Polls kept track of anti semitism in geographic locations the ADL has been doing that. You presume to tell me and Jews we do not know what the ADL is or the statistics it keeps and what they mean? You claim to tell me or any Jew how we must use those statistics ... The ADL was created in 2011 by a lawyer to combat thought processes that led to the discrimination and hateful attacks against Jews. Its mission was to expose this behaviour these thought processes as negative generalizations made to define Jews as less worthy, human, equal, than non Jews. That mission of the ADL was never limited to just understanding how it impacts on Jews BUT all peoples targeted with hatred. The ADL has been a strong ally assisting Christian, Muslim and all kinds of religious and social groups defend ourselves against hatred. Because it does, because the B`Nai B`Rith does as well, because Jewish leaders reach out to Christians and Muslims and others to combat hatred, this makes us dupes of Islamic extremists...why because you say so...you would prefer we build walls and define entire peoples as undesireable. In your world, you try place yourself in an anti-septic bubble where everyone believes like you do and that makes you more educated than I. In conclusion, your words simply repeat your bigotry against Muslims Argus and Jews and anyone else who disagrees with your beliefs. You want to come on and piss on Muslims, that is your right. Its my right and the right of others to challenge your negative generalizations as being illogical and unhelpful in understanding what criteria would be needed to properly enunciate immigration policies. Yes we know you are quick to be able to say what is not Canadian but never once have you come on here and say what it IS to be Canadian. Your silence in that regard I would contend shows you can`t create concepts or beliefs you only know how to tear down or piss on beliefs.

I've had to research Emotional Abuse a lot lately for a case I'm working with and everything I read about emotional abusers, reminds me of the things you do/say/behave here. You employ many of the abusive communication styles of a narcissist - name-calling, twisting of words, gaslighting, assigning hostile intentions and motivations where there are none, demanding over-explanations so that you can nitpick, only listening for points to argue, ignoring other perspectives, character attacks, snotty/snarky/snide/sarcastic remarks, unwarranted and off-topic "drive-by" style attacks on certain posters in threads they haven't even commented on....... I hope you are taking out all your ugliness here and not in real life.

One regime's whistleblower is another regime's rat, just go ask Julian Assange - if it wasn't for him.... Never mind.