JerrySeinfeld

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm Fortunately for us, Galileo didn't think in terms of "consensus". My favorite line: “One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” Odd prose for an outfit (the BBC) which has been a reliable champion of AGW.

The #1 name for newborn boys in London, England is Mohammed/Muhamed/Mohamed(etc.). But I digress. The key question relating to europe or Canada is not whether Islamic peoples will be a majority by this date or that date. It is whether or not these people choose to embrace certain basic values in western democracies or try to impose their values upon said democracy. Whether or not an Islamic minority becomes a majority is not the issue. It's how noisey, demanding they get and whether our bend-over-backwards multiculti sensitivity is willing to alter fundamental principals of democracy in aqcuiescance. I think former UN secretary general Kofi Anna wrapped the issue up pretty well in addressing the Danish Cartoon worldwide muslim violence: "The offensive caricatures were first published in a European country which has recently acquired a significant Muslim population and is not yet sure how to adjust to it." Which is at the crux of it. Aren't immigrants suposed to be the ones doing the adjusting? Apparently freedom of expression is just another one of those things the unwashed western democracies haven't yet learned to eliminate in the interest of serving our new minority muslim populations. So cultural sensitivy trumps the fundamental freedoms? wow. "We will use your Democracy to destroy your Democracy." - Muslim Cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed They don't need majorities.

Actually Michael it's fairly common knowledge that Obama's most recent stimulous of about $800 billion was laden with treats for Democrats to help ensure re-election. Couple that together with Obama contravening bankruptcy law to give ownership in the auto companies to his union buddies (can you say "Halliburton"?). Then add in a declared communist and 9-11 conspiracy theorist appointed to a senior white house position (Van Jones). Mix in a child prostition scandal from one of Obama's biggest supporting organizations and a 20 year accosiation with a racist pastor. Blend that with the President of the US continously "extending a hand" to an illegitimate holocaut-denier who steals elections. Now sprinkle on the inevitable higher taxes from the $1 trillion he's trying to ram through on "health" reform and a Cap & Trade bill that stifles busines investment at perhaps the worst possible economic timing this century, amid growing skepticism that Al Gore's movie was even a true story. And you've got a pretty good recipe for a Carter-esque style implosion. All this in less than a year. Many, even on his own team, have said in the wake of his Nobel Prize that he hasn't done anything yet. But it's worse: he's de-facto raised taxes, ruined American credibility with thug states, taken steps to stifle economic, investment and consumer recovery and burned up virtually all of the political capital with which he came to washington. SOme are saying Obama, in the wake of his Nobel pize, is actually becomeing a bit of a punchline. But Hopeychangemas to all!

I for one think Stephen Harper has handled the knee-jerk race baiters calmly and with proportion. Instead of getting all high-strung about the issue and allowing the race-baiters to make race the issue, he's kept calm and basically contesting the claim in court, where it belongs. You are attempting to cross into Canada from a foreign country. Your facts and docs don't add up. In doing their job, our officials said "no." Now you want to sue us? We are not going to flinch. See you in court. I like it. Simple, calm, reasonable and to the point. Harper is doing the right thing, and without major fanfare. As per usual. I love this guy.

If this chick gets $2.5 million for a case of mistaken identity, please can someone tell me where I can sign up to be put in a foreign prison for 9 days? cheers Jerry

Indeed. But it seems to be common fodder for Obama's allies in the media.

http://paul-m-jones.com/public/images/obama-joker.jpg

I agreee - somewhat. But what is "blatantly racist". Is any unflattering depiction of a black man on a sign racist? I recall many unflattering images, effigies etc, namecalling of GW Bush. However I don't recall people crying the blues about it.

Lefties like Keith Olberman, Jimmy Carter, Jeanine Garafolo, among others, are now claiming that those who oppose the health reforms in the US are racists. Is this fair? Discuss. We'll get to Barbara Boxer (D) california pulling the race card on a black chamber of commerce member later...

There's a dodge. lol

It seems like the left wing / Democrats / liberals spend a great deal off time talking about and being pre-occupied with race, given that they're supposed to be the "anti racist" party. More and more it seems they have a vested interest in keeping this issue that was solved 60 years ago alive and kicking. Why is that?

I would like to know why there is some kind of expectation that the government take care of all of these reserves like school childeren. If you want the stuff, get in your car and go get it.

Let's put it this way, multicultural societies in general have no identity of their own, they celebrate the fact that they have no speciffic belief and instead celebrate other peoples' beliefs. This has a couple of effects. First, the Quebecers - who do have an identity and seek to defend it - are less prone to acccept other societies seemingly hell bent on changing society to their favour. Second, young people from strong cultures who DO have specific beelief systems (ie. Islam) find it much easier to latch on to the belief systems from "back home" which are strong and proud, rather than onto the watered down "belief in nothing", "not moral compass" cultural attitudes of the western multi culti. As a result, over time the strong minority continues to grow stronger, and the boundless tolerance of the multiculti becomes weaker. Am I afraid of muslims? Not really. But I'm cognisant of what's going on and suspicious of the future of healthy democracy if it continues.

hmm. I always thought we did have two tier health care: Canada's plugged up public bureaucracy, or drive south and go to a US hospital. Which begs the question, where will Canadians go for their health care if Obama has his way? Do we have a dog in this fight? of course we do. We're customers too!

I find it exceedingly odd that the community-organizer-in-chief has a problem with people in the community organizing. Oh - but they're not "with the program" so we need a list of them on an email database. Un freaking believeable. Obama was supposed to be a race unifier. And the first time he's faced with a race question he give s knee jerk reaction demonizing white police officers without knowing what happened. Obama was supposed to be "reaching across the ailse" to unify America, yet when people have the AUDACITY to ask a senator if he's even read the 1067 page bill prior to voting on it, he asks his footsoldiers to send him the "dissenters' email addresses to be put on a list. This guy is just as radical as advertised. Too bad people chose to ignore all of his outlanding believes because he's "cool" and "black".

lol. I love the new Obama dictatorship. No one allow to object. And if you do, well, your a REPUBLICAN. oooooh. aahhh. So your opinion only matters if you're a. Not a REPUBLICAN? or b. In agreement with Czar Obama? Wow. Did you guys hear about Obama asking for the email addresses of people who disagree withe HR3200? Why? Because they were opposing the health care bill in during "casual conversations"? Wow. I had no idea disagreeeing with the administration or having casual conversations in opposition to them were grounds for building up a database of "dissenters" Wow. And it hasn't even been 200 days. Can't wait for the "fairness doctrine". This guy is completely out of control. He's getting on with it.

I disagree. Just because a concept is simple doesn't make it incorrect and in fact often makes it eloquent. But you touched on a big parrt of my point: cotrary to what the common wisdom is, in fact it appears it is socialism, not capitalism, that is really about greed. Because it is those who espouse it that end up benefitting. It's always about #1. But it's the spocialists who are insidious because they hide their greed under the guise of "good intentions", when really it's about taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't. Simple? Sure. But so was E=MC2. Doesn't mean it isn't completely and utterly true.

You can't call something a hate crime just because someome beats someone else up and uses a racial slur. When people have a disagreement and it comes to blows, there is obviously a lot of adrenaline and anger flowing, which can lead to saying things in the heat of the moment. For example, if some heavy set guy tries to pick up my girlfriend in front of me, then i say - "hey man, this is my girl friend" and essentially tell him to take a hike, then if he persists and it gets heated and eventually turns into a fist fight, then while beating the piss out of him I call him a "fatso", that doesn't mean I beat him up just because he's fat. There are other circumstances at play and the "fat" comment was merely a by-product. Of course, our hyper-sensitive society already has it's pre-concieved pre packaged knee jerk reactions to everything already built in. It's 2009. Are we ever going to graduate past the civil rights movement, which was 50 years ago? Or are we going to keep regurgitating the same BS sentiments everytime someone of colour gets into a scuffle? If it's the latter, prepare for reams of this crapola being spewed every news ahour, because the population base ain't gettin' any whiter.

I figured it out. Socialists are the most money-centered people on the planet. Theier entire existence is based around the principal that someone else has more than they do. They are jealous and elect governments who will steal from others and give to them so that they too can have something. But mostly, it's about bringing down the successful. Essentially, a socialist would rather see everyone poor, because it wrenches their gut to see people actually work hard and get ahead of them. Also, the whole climate change thing is perfect disguise for socialism. Essentially, if you look behind the curtain of green thinking, it's just a bunch of granola do-nothings who want everyone to drive small cars or even ride their bikes and give up life's pleasures to live s simply, crap life....just like in Cuba. Think about it. It's so obvious. If it looks like s duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Indeed any system which rewards the lazy and punishes the hard working is doomed to failure.

... and black on black crime in the US is much higher than white on black crime. Argus makes an interesting point: why are we so selective about crimes by whites on other races as being "hate crimes". That's a bogeyman. Are white's the only people capable of racism? if that's what you think, then you are the one with the problem. The race industry, headed by folks like Jesse Jackon or Al Sharpton has been extremely successful at brainwashing society into ultra knee jerk apologism, to the point that black crime is "justified" and white crime is "racist". Wow. What a world.

... and black on black crime in the US is much higher than white on black crime. Argus makes an interesting point: why are we so selective about crimes by whites on other races as being "hate crimes". That's a bogeyman. Are white's the only people capable of racism? if that's what you think, then you are the one with the problem. The race industry, headed by folks like Jesse Jackon or Al Sharpton has been extremely successful at brainwashing society into ultra knee jerk apologism, to the point that black crime is "justified" and white crime is "racist". Wow. What a world.

Yes. Really. This kind of thing wasn't happening with this kind of frequency in England 20 years ago. Are we to correlate this with increased immigration combined with boundless tolerance for culture at all costs? Or do we stick out heads in the sand? I'm not sure how many of these have to occur and be buried by the ultra tolerant before the liberal western media stop writing this kind of behavior off as a normal part of western society. Shall I continue posting these links to honour killings of young muslim girls in western countries? And why, prey tell, does the left continue to play along as if there is "nothing to see here"? Turning away in the name of cultural tolerance isn't saving these girls.

That's because first cousin marriages are commonplace in that culture. On that note, I read something really strange not too long ago. Apparently one of the busiest air corridors in the world is between some Pakistani village and some mid-size community in England. They continually come back and forth going there to marry youn g girls (cousins) and then bringing them back to England. As well, apparently the honour killing incidence in mid-sized English communities - being overrun by new Muslim arrivals - is unusually high. My question is this: All the young (and old) hippies get hot and bothered by multi-national corporations and "corporate globalization" - usually referring to a McDonalds or an Exxon refinery in Mumbai. But what about the cultural imperialism in the reverse? What's more dangerous? A Big Mac in Cairo? or scores of 14-year old girls being thrown off balconies in West Hampshire? It's cultural imperialism on a global scale. What to do? Who knows. But isn't it worth discussion? The left wing thought police would have us all shut up. "Nothing to see here".

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Charges+all...6807/story.html