drummindiver

Ridiculous!!!! It`s also not subjective that Israel has been attacked mercilessly by all surrounding territories and as is allowed to defend herself.

Ridiculous!!! In Ontario we already have warrant less entry. Thanks to the Libs. You don`t believe these federal agents should be afforded police like status to apprehend criminals. Of course you don`t. Ppl who oppose pipelines are not terrorist. Ppl who blow up pipelines are terrorists.

drummindiver, on 31 Dec 2014 - 12:15 AM, said: jacee Senior Member Members 7,092 posts Gender:Female Who the hell told you that crap!! Ridiculous. You spout vitriol with zero supporting cites while demanding them at every turn. We know you can spell ridiculous...it's your go to phrase for everything you oppose. Again, without proof, or support. So, let's show you what ridiculous is. You. btw, I'll save you the time and tell Michael Hardner I asked if you were challenged. Ridiculous!!! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-teachers-pledge-its-not-business-as-usual-on-extracurriculars/article4537777/ http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/12/03/ottawa-public-elementary-students-miss-out-on-extracurricular-activities-as-teachers-escalate-work-to-rule-campaign http://www.etfo.ca/AdviceForMembers/PRSMattersBulletins/Pages/Voluntary%20Extracurricular%20Activities.aspx http://www.citynews.ca/2013/02/28/elementary-teachers-continue-boycott-of-extracurricular-activities/ http://www.essex.ontariopc.com/News/Details/Union-forbids-teachers-from-returning-to-extracurriculars- http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2012/10/12/students-fear-for-extracurricular-future

delete

What?? lol Bread and butter customers? Who are they? Oh yes, Canadians. You really are a Liberal, aren't you? No other explanation why you would think it appropriate to throw away over a billion a year on this embarrassment. I guess that's the price we (I) pay for keeping you "progressive" folks in the know. btw, CBC and serious credible corporation is an oxymoron of nuclear proportions.

That is the most complete line of bullsh*t I have read on this forum period. You don't accept video evidence as evidence? Really? Because Youtube airs them? That is the most asinine argument yet. You base this assertion as infallible due to one marginal video. Really? Let it go Michael, let it go. "? If you say that I espouse these ideas, then you have seen them no ? "From what I can see it's mostly to point out that we're better than them, and a general emotive group-hug about how superior we are. If we acknowledge that Islamist terrorism comes from Islam, as I have done, then what then ?" You are the only person articulating this ridiculous assertion that anybody has said we are better than anybody. You claim others do it. I challenged you to prove it. You obviously can't back up this claim, nor any other claim you make. Because you don't like evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough, or not from the right source, or is beneath your intelligence level, or whatever. "Yes, this entire line of pointing out flaws in other cultures is that sort of thing." Again, bullsh*t. I point out flaws where I see them. If Islam is full of character flaws, I'll point them out. If Christian fundamentalists start a wave of terror, I'll point that out. Atheists start attacking ppl because they don't believe, I'll call bulls*t on that also. What else are the purpose of these forums Michael if not to discuss these types of issues? For you to advance your left wing agenda? "Can we move on?" We apparently can't even have an honest discussion, why should we move on? "1. I don't have to back up your points." You don't have to back up my points. I will. It would be nice if you backed up your own. "And, anyway, my point is NOT that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but that there's no stated end point to this line of criticism." Isn't that pointing out flaws in someone else's culture? Are you not, with that comment, pointing out flaws in someone elses culture? Just a yes or no please. "If I acknowledge these points, then why do people have to keep repeating them ? It just seems to me that we're at the end of the discussion." Really? The title of this thread is Islamaphobia.: DEFINING "ISLAMOPHOBIA" The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework. If you don't agree with all tenets of Islam, or all Muslim actions, you are branded Islamaphobic. Which is the same as calling somebody a racist. Or a bigot. Which I am not. So bullsh*t again. Fox apologized as Emerson said Birmingham was a no-go. Not true obviously. There are no-go zones however, and outlets like NBC, New York Times etc have been reporting about them for years. Here are some non-youtbe, links. I'm sure you won't read them anyways, as you refuse any actual proof that contradicts your beliefs. http://business.financialpost.com/2015/01/23/lawrence-solomon-pariss-muslim-no-go-zones-are-no-joke/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/21/europes-muslim-no-go-zones-documented-on-video/ http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/22/report-uk-no-go-zones-sparking-tension-between-black-and-muslim-communities/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/22/those-mythical-no-go-zones-paris-nbc-and-ny-times-recognized-them-decade http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/22/those-mythical-no-go-zones-paris-nbc-and-ny-times-recognized-them-decade http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/24/muslim-patrol-gang-arrests-homophobic-video http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/islam-experts-no-go-zones-looming-for-america/ http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-europe/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

Come on Michael. You have google. You really want me to get the links to tell you how France, England, Canada, US, "many" other countries have large numbers of Muslim immigrants who don't assimilate? Not only don't assimilate, but create No-Go zones for natives of that country? What is the objective of this line of discussion? Really? Some places we are not allowed to criticize, let alone talk about this, and I'm not talking Muslim majority countries. Yes, these two are extreme, but what about freedom of speech? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23064355 We are not even allowed to be in "Muslim" areas in some of these countries. Sweden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziOuNKymDnQ Belgium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKk15KcqNk UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VQk_VklYUc France https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIy8snQrpYU Germany https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csOvTKkMBtM Denmark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwz9Wl3Bsu0 Holland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sJ7eMUBBzc Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN6uGE-Ej58 How about Dearborn Michigan, USA? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVvgrEm4FE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfVAeG3rn4 Canada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMIAG1yL_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPbQsUc0PXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1H7WPBck6E You continually espouse ideas that I personally have never uttered, nor seen. "From what I can see it's mostly to point out that we're better than them, and a general emotive group-hug about how superior we are. If we acknowledge that Islamist terrorism comes from Islam, as I have done, then what then ?" If you can show me one reference where I or anybody has stated anything of the sort I will write a full apology. You just continue on with your Affleckesque defence. Can you refute anything I've posted? What can we do? How about lose the PC stigma of saying we disagree about anything or anybody. It's not bigotry to disagree with what's going on in "many" countries. It's reality.

They are not alienated. They refuse to assimilate (in many-not all-cases). Many countries welcome them in as citizens to have them refuse to even acknowledge our heritage and customs, yet demand we acknowledge theirs.

lol Of course I did. Surely you can see that 70-74% of a religion not supporting killing your ass is not acceptable? Or enacting Sharia law for us all to live by?

I reread the poll and edited my post accordingly. btw, the poll from Pew stated 1.3? The link from Pew I posted stated 1.6. Obviously one link is more current.

So, they don't even know the base line number of Muslims in the world, yet they can accurately determine how many Muslim extremists there may be? Anyways, I won't quibble about numbers. 1.3 billion, 2.08 billion. Doesn't matter. Best guess, using the lowest number of Muslims, equates to 350 million Muslims support violent jihad. As of July 4, 2014, there were 318,881,992 people living in the United States. By your very conservative estimates, there are 31,118,008 more radical Muslims in the world than there are in the United States, the third most populous country in the world. Does this mean they will all turn to violent jihad? Of course not. In the case of war, not all 318,881,992 Americans would go to war either.

Sorry Jacee, where are you getting your stats? 1.6 billion http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/ 1.8 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations 2.08 billion (I don't find this credible, but thought I would throw it in for context) http://www.muslimpopulation.com/World/

lol. Sorry. I quoted OGFT, not you. I have edited my comment to show this. I should be expected to show evidence of my statement. I will. As should, ahem, everybody. The rest stands. https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/cbcs-sasa-petricic-lies-about-lack-of-israeli-media-coverage-of-harper/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/

That means only 750 million DO support it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg And lets not forget Taqiyya. Of the 950 million, are 100% telling the truth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

If the rhetorical isolated incidences like the one you illustrated are all that were happening in the world we would not be having this debate. That is obviously not the case. Scroll down for the numbers http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30080914

lol. This forum's powers of extrapolation are incredible. By stating I watched vids and said they looked paid for ( "I watched a few videos. Pretty obvious they are "paid for", unlike the less obvious "reporting" done on CBC") I was accused of having an unethical conservative take on this. (``So as long as it's poorly produced propaganda then you're alright with it? Now there's the unethical conservative response I was expecting.```) OGFT stated I was more aligned with Fox and their garbage. (`` I suspect you'd be much more in line with Fox news, speaking of garbage. Don't worry, Mulcair has just today stated he will seek to reinstate funding for the CBC.``) OGFT first point was Fox, Mulcair`s support of CBC secondary. I responded to your first point. At least they credit sources for their crazy bullshit. And is Mulcair paying for this out of his own pocket? Then I responded to OGFT second point, without stating whether I thought CBC was garbage or not. btw, I think it`s garbage. At least they credit sources for their crazy bullshit. And is Mulcair paying for this out of his own pocket? If you cannot see I was clearly referring to Fox with the crazy bullshit comment, it must be my fault, and I will endeavour to ensure I refer to each comment directed at me in a point by point manner so as not to confuse.

Sorry? You want examples of Fox news reporting crazy bullshit? http://gawker.com/5971256/fox-news-refers-to-the-westboro-baptist-church-as-a-left-wing-cult Even I don't think it fair labelling Westboro Baptist Church as left wing. Relax. A joke.

I stated that Senators cannot become a dual citizen. I did not state it was legal if they already had dual citizenship. An omission which I should not have made, my bad, I apologize. Is it legal for Mulcair? Yes. Does this make it right? I don't think so. I don't believe Mulcair has a realistic chance of becoming PM, so I'm not worried about it in that realm. This is not a politically motivated argument, but a moral one. I wouldn't vote for him if he "was the most Canadian" as someone stated. They are correct. I wouldn't vote for anybody, Harper included, if they had dual citizenship. I would abstain. The other debate is whether the Head of State or the Head of Government has more authority. I believe I answered that.

And the Canadian electorate have no say? Of c Thank you for the response. I don't believe I started with a wrong premise. It has nothing to do with Obama. Simple as what I stated, which is my opinion, nothing more. I have read quite extensively on who rules and how in Canada. I understand, as stated, that it is indeed the Queen who is head of state in Canada, and that the GG is her rep here. Canada has complete sovereignty as an independent country and the Queen's role as monarch of Canada is separate from her role as the British monarch or the monarch of any of the other Commonwealths. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/canada.htm The Commonwealth realms are, for purposes of international relations, sovereign states. They are united only in voluntary sharing of the institution of the monarchy, Yours and Cybercoma's arguments would suggest that Canada is not indeed a sovereign state. -regards the importance,or lack of importance, of Statute of Westiminster 1931 and the Canada Act 1982 "Even though Canada only gained control of its own constitutional amendment in 1982 and the very last legal traces of its colonial past have yet to be formally extinguished, it is quite evident that Canada has been a fully independent state for a number of decades. The persistence of these vestiges of Canada's former status illustrate how much Canada owes its independence from Britain to political developments, rather than legal changes in the formal constitution. The legal amendments made to the Canadian constitution were important and necessary to the acquisition of sovereign independence, but these changes were not sufficient to convey independence on their own. Britain's legislative supremacy over Canada was greatly restrained by convention long before the passage of either the Statute of Westminster or the Canada Act. And Canada's complete control over the Monarch's prerogative powers was gained incrementally through the evolution of political practices which replaced the Monarch's British advisers with Canadian ministers. This fundamental transfer of executive power, which brought with it complete independence in foreign relations, was achieved almost entirely by constitutional convention. An understanding of Canada's acquisition of full independence continues to have critical bearing on modern constitutional debates, especially with respect to the international competence of provincial governments. What international personality the provinces have the legal power to assert is not simply a matter of international political practice; it is a matter of domestic constitutional law. In any attempt to establish what the law of the Canadian constitution is on this issue, one must appreciate that the transfer of the executive powers currently exercised by the federal government was brought about almost entirely by political practice." http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sovereignty/

lol. Thank you. I appreciate your humour.

lol. Longest prorogue in Canadian history. 37th Parliament Term: 2001.01.29 - 2004.05.23 CHRETIEN 2003.11.12 82 shut down house to avoid AG report on sponsorship and hand over to Paul Martin Again, so what? All the work done until then dies. Wasted effort, wasted tax dollars. They all do it, it's crap every time. There's no pointing a finger at one and not the other.

lol. At least they credit sources for their crazy bullshit. And is Mulcair paying for this out of his own pocket?

Mighty AC, are you suggesting I am "unethical" in my opinion of this matter. Are you suggesting I "support the act". Unethical? Who stated it's unethical? Have they been charged? Is there a law against a political party utilizing News Canada? Do you have examples? Are you certain the Libs or NDP are not utilizing News Canada? Can you prove they are not? To be clear, I don't approve of News Canada. I think all political entities ought to be transparent. That being said, I surmise that basically 100% are not. Does this make it acceptable? Of course not, but let's attack the status quo, not single out one example. You gave one example. The CBC is another. http://www.ezralevan..._leftwing_bias/ To be clearerer, I don't approve of NC, the Cons, Libs, or NDP plus any smaller or fringe parties utilizing advertising as paid endorsement. I truly don't know how else to say it.

Oy vei. You have a way inflated opinion of a podcast and a couple of left wing nutters posting on a web forum (though I enjoy the web forum immensely). Are you able to post any information about this "scandal' in which my "unethical" stance is the same as yours? Sorry, only half the same. I said I don't agree with NC. I do, however, hope the CBC IS gutted. With the entrails thrown in the garbage.