Dio: I pretty much agree with your views on Israel. I however wonder about the link with canadian sovereignty which is the focus of Vive afterall. Are you arguing that as a country Canada is not sovereign, since it stands along with Israel? If that is the case, content focused on the canadian foreign policy with Israel would be more relevant.

   

As the thread id is international politics i thought it safe to place it here nor would i frame my remarks in a manner as you have done. <br /> sovereignty is a concept quite hollow there are still ties to England are there not and in my opin, sovereignty went out the window when corporatism got a foot hold, no, strike foot hold and replace it with strangle hold<br /> in fact sovereignty became non-existent when law, as we know it, was created with : nns of the court.<br /> I may have misunderstood your meaning however Susan is quite firm in her stand of what constitutes anti-Semitism, and quite conditions to believe as she does in this regard. <br /> <br /> You may have guessed by now I don’t put much stock in the concept od nations or nationality, flags and other falderals nor do I see issues as unconnected from the whole any issue, see hermetic philosophy <br /> <br /> Canada is the name of a country and as an entity it is without foundation to say Canada does this or Canada does that, no such thing occurs <br /> <br /> Some of Canada may, or the government of Canada may do but as a whole the citizens of the land mass do not en masse' do in harmony anything.<br /> <br /> What I see as relevant is that Israel’s government and its agents are hypocritical murderers. The government of Canada is separate and distinct in every way from me and always will be! <br />

   

You have got to work with the real world, no matter how imperfect it is. Ditto with Canada, Quebec, US or the UK. Sovereignty is a process IMO and not an end-goal. Grosse différence.

   

In order to work in the real world one must be able to distiguish it from the matrix<br /> That which you call the real world is a cobbled up set of subtrafuges and confidence games,<br /> To you sovereignty is a process but then I know not of the context in which you speak, lay it on me, Bro <br /> <br /> here is an eyefull according to the con game of law<br /> http://www.fooshotkee.com/black's_law_dictionary.htm <br /> <br /> but now we are going further off topic of Israeli Atrocities, anf that is the purpose of this thread and my initiating it

   

[QUOTE BY= Diogenes] To you sovereignty is a process but then I know not of the context in which you speak, lay it on me, Bro <br /> ...<br /> but now we are going further off topic of Israeli Atrocities, anf that is the purpose of this thread and my initiating it[/QUOTE]<br /> The "process" I see is made of alternative medias, maintream medias, public opinion, elected representatives, citizen initiatives, NGOs, etc... I think changes can be enacted over time through the above. This would apply to shaping a "sovereign" foreign policy of Canada in regards to Israel.

   

The "process" I see is made of alternative medias, maintream medias, public opinion, elected representatives, citizen initiatives, NGOs, etc... I think changes can be enacted over time through the above. This would apply to shaping a "sovereign" foreign policy of Canada in regards to Israel. <br /> <br /> <br /> Ok thanks for the explain ation but it has nothing to do with how israeli govs are slaughtering Paliatinians <br /> and while the bullshit game of "change" takes place more and more murders will take place<br /> focus on that fact and we, you and I will have agreement

   

In America we speak three languages: Slang, Formal English, and Legal English, Though simular, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. This article is written in Legal English. <br /> <br /> <br /> Slang<br /> <br /> It's the language of the street. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next. It abounds with special and paradoxical interpretations. Once must "grow up" with the language to fully appreciate its peculiarities. <br /> <br /> Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say either, "That's really cool!" or "That's really hot!" Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, "That's B-A-D!" or "That's G-O-O-D!" <br /> <br /> <br /> Formal English<br /> <br /> Precise communications require a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the schools, and it is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or centuries to evolve its meanings. <br /> <br /> Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show slang or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more popular usages.<br /> <br /> <br /> This author favors Webster's 1828 Dictionary (which is also online [but as of this writing, temporarily offline]) because it is useful in understanding words used in the U.S. Constitution. G. & C. Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary published in 1953 and earlier is great for modern meanings. <br /> <br /> <br /> Legal English<br /> <br /> When you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Also known as King's English, or the Language of the Court Room, Legal English is extremely stable, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning. <br /> <br /> Because accuracy is required for good legal communication, legal definitions tend to be rather verbose. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve that accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries. The more thorough dictionaries are entitled "Corpus Juris" and "Words and Phrases." A given word could require fifty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning. Other dictionaries (in descending order of this author's preference) include Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1872 Edition), Ballentine's Law Dictionary, and Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition or earlier). <br /> <br /> Later editions of Bouvier's Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias <br /> <br /> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th through 7th Editions are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations. <br /> <br /> The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and the people's point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government's point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former. <br /> <br /> <br /> part of the problem, hmmm

   

Take back your language and your medias says Chomsky.

   

As you may know Chomsky is a respected linguist and as such he has more understanding of language than those without training in the field of linguistics, but again all that is off topic and not to the point of how the so called chosen people get to behave like marauding drug crazed berserkers. <br /> <br /> Silence is consent, and I for one will not be silent on the topic of atrocities done by these promoters of Shoah Business<br /> <br /> http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=93 <br /> <br /> <br /> There’s No Business Like Shoah Business<br /> Interview by Victor Frolke<br /> <br /> The son of concentration camp survivors has accused the ‘Holocaust Industry’, Eli Wiesel and Jewish leaders worldwide of a vast shakedown. In response the so-called ‘Holocaust Industry’ has described its accuser as … “indecent, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid." And as if that wasn’t enough the accuser himself, Professor Norman Finkelstein, has been angrily denounced as: “poison, a disgusting self-hating Jew…something you find under a rock.” Ed. <br /> <br />