dialamah

For sure. Certainly not based on anything other than my own analysis of the situation as it's developed because there was no statement put out by the White House that they were looking for ways to strip citizenship from Mexicans and Muslims, eh? Yeah, it just reminded me because I'd read the story about 'denaturalising' Americans recently.

And they do; most of the tips to authorities about Muslims come from other Muslims. You don't have to; it's implicit in statements like "Oh, she must have said no to him because Muslim men don't like it when women say no". Or when there's a crowd of Muslims standing outside a courthouse condemning the Muslim killer inside and you are saying "Why don't Muslims condemn such acts of violence against women?" That's plausible, I agree. In my opinion, it's even more plausible that the rise of "populist" political leaders and parties is even more significant in the rise of antisemitism and attacks on Muslims and other minorities in Canada, the States and around the world. Ok. So, when DoP says something brilliant like his most recent "All Muslims follow the same Koran, so they're either ticking time bombs or not really Muslims", why aren't you pointing out to him that not all Muslims believe exactly the same thing, hmm? If some nutball on here said that "Jews wanted to take over the world and we must protect ourselves from them" wouldn't you object to that as antisemitic? Could it be because you agree with him - only "real Muslims" engage in terrorism, beat up women and kill gays? Oh, look - there you go again - accusing me of calling people Islamophobes. If only you could actually "discuss" instead of slinging lies. OMG. Poor baby; I prevented the rest of the board from joining you in demonizing Muslims? But I think you are wrong; nothing I say has ever stopped you and your crew from discussing whatever you like, whilst attacking me for disagreeing.

I can see how Trump and the Republicans are destroying so much of what made America particularly admirable, but how do you see Democrats doing the same?

Not condemning you condemning anti-semitism. I'm condemning your demand that "moderate Muslims" are somehow failing in their duty because you aren't satisfied that they are doing enough, even while you ignore everything they do. Perhaps if you hadn't also, recently, condemned a drunk Saudi guy and a murderous Syrian refugee as 'representative' of all Muslims, while ignoring the Muslims who also condemn their actions, I wouldn't have the notion that you expect a lot more from "Moderate Muslims" than you do from moderate Whites. I also recall how blind and silent you were when two posters here opined that Muslims deserved to die. Perhaps because moderate Muslims expect the authorities in the country in which they live to handle extremists. That's what I expect when a racist shouts insults at non-white people on public transit, or a White Nationalist shoots them in a grocery store or the parking lot. I don't expect or ask you, as a 'moderate white person' who disapproves of such behavior to come along and 'handle it' in some way. If directly asked, then I would expect you to condemn it but beyond that is entirely up to your own conscience how much effort you want to put into denouncing White Supremacy. I give the same courtesy to Muslims. And if by "moderate Muslims" you mean those Muslim leaders should publicly denounce anti-semitism - I provided you THREE cites clearly doing that; it took a single 30 second google search. Just think if I'd spent longer on the search, hmm? But I suspect it wouldn't matter how many examples I could show you of Muslims, leaders or not, denouncing anti-Semitism, it would not be enough for you. It really seems that if it's not every single Muslim in the area or world, it's just not going to be enough. I do not make excuses for violence or oppression of women/minorities. What I do is fail to condemn Muslims for the sins of their more extreme members (aka "Islamists"), or even of the excesses of their governments. I am not debating with these intolerant and hateful Muslims, am I? I'm debating with intolerant Canadians. Therein lies the difference. Of course, some of those intolerant and hateful Muslims have banned me when I've pointed out their intolerance and hatred, as they have Muslims who've done the same. That's the thing with intolerance; it can't bear to hear anything but it's own hate. That intolerance on this board is reflected in people informing me I'm lying or that I'm not Canadian, or repeating endlessly that I'm "making excuses" for violence/intolerance, or that I support misogyny, or hate Canada. Etc. In my opinion, you are a remarkably good and caring person, more so than me in ways that matter. Unfortunately, you fail to see how your attitudes toward Muslims are informed by an extreme right-wing agenda that has filtered into the mainstream, they sound logical and reasonable and you believe them. And, it seems to me your "side" is winning, and just like Jews have been vilified for decades, if not centuries, I expect Muslims will be facing the same fate. But I won't be on the side of that, even if I'm also and equally vilified by accusations that I am a race-traitor, a traitor to Canada, women and the LGBTQ community.

I'm not outraged so much as resigned. It's true that the Obama administration did the same thing, but "building on" certainly suggests a more focused effort. I would say that the goal of the previous administration would have been to identify people who were in the US who really shouldn't be, while the Trump administration's goal is to find excuses to get rid of people they don't like - Muslims, Mexicans, maybe gays or transsexuals. People inclined to vote Democrat.

He's also creating a task force to examine applications of immigrants, and if they find an error, omission or a deliberate lie, stripping those people of their citizenship. "Making America White Again".

Al quds day seems to be more about supporting Palestine and objecting to Isreal's occupation of East Jerusalem, not condemning Jews. Anti-Semitic sentiment is not it's goal, though I have no doubt it's held by some of the more extreme people who attend these events, and agree it should be condemned. However, please note that it's not just Muslims who support Palestine and object to Isreal's incursion into Palestinian lands; why don't you ask where all the moderate anti-Zionists are? But since you didn't, and assume that only Muslims support al quds and that means they all must hate and want to kill Jews, here are some "Moderate Muslims". http://time.com/5437229/muslim-organizations-benefit-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-victims/ https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/british-muslim-group-denounces-anti-semitism-in-full-page-newspaper-ad-1.6099535 https://ing.org/new-ing-editorial-by-maha-elgenaidi-why-muslims-must-continue-to-stand-up-to-anti-semitism/ And, to be fair, are you in Pittsburgh today, standing on the street outside the courthouse to condemn the White guy who committed the massacre? Did you go to Charlottesville last year to condemn the White Supremacists who chanted anti-Semitic slogans as they passed a Synagogue? Did you loudly and decisively declare that not all Whites hated Jews, organize protests against White Nationalists, contribute money to the victims, confront your friends and family to do the same? Are you out there "proving" that there are "moderate" White people who don't hate Jews, even as White nationalist sentiment grows and attacks against Jews increase? Or are you here, assuming that the extremists in the Muslim group are the norm for that group and so all Muslims must "prove" they don't agree with those extremists? Kind of how I feel about the constant anti-Muslim comments made on this forum by DoP, Argus, you and a few others. But I'm saying something about it.

I didn't forget him at all. But when the US authorities consider *right-wing* terrorism a bigger problem than Islamic terrorism and left-wing terrorism, then the idea that 'left-wing ideology in universities' is the 'real problem' is patently ridiculous. Unlike the leader of the US, who openly admires the most brutal and violent leaders on the planet and applauds police brutality and physical attacks on the media in his own country, "social justice warriors" do not explicitly promote, condone, encourage or applaud violence. Even the anti-fa, which right-wingers like to pretend are the most violent people on the earth, cannot hold a candle to the death and destruction spread by extreme right-wing ideology.

Right. Left wing activists in universities are more 'troubling' than right-wing nut cases sending bombs around the country, right-wing nutcases shooting up tabernacles and black churches, and religious nutcases driving trucks into crowds of people. Got'cha.

In the US and Canada, most terrorism is from right-wing extremists. In the world generally, most terrorism is from religious extremists, especially Islam. I worry about terrorism; I don't worry about right wingers generally or Muslims generally, or religious people in general.

Probably something to do with that whole "free speech" thing they have down south. Why is it so important to you Trumpsters that this guy not be a Trump supporter? Why can't you simply condemn his actions and affirm that Trumpsters are not about violence, as Trump himself did, publically? Why is it necessary to the Trumpster contingent that he be a disguised Democrat?

Not to mention that the FBI says the bombs could have detonated if exposed to heat, shock or friction - which suggests that anyone between the sender and the intended recipient could have been injured.

Most Americans are ok; their prez sucks bigly.

Some Canadians complain that we don't collect enough racial or ethnic data and therefore cannot prove or disprove which ethnic groups commit more/less crimes, pays more/less taxes etc.

Sent it back; you need it far more than I do with you anxiety over minorities, the government and White guy persecution.

Yup.

Tell me, of what use is "public debate"? A bunch of media talking heads on CBC, Global, Globe and Mail, National Post, etc, being rejected by ~30% of the population because they're "Liberal supporters"? Refusal by the same demographic to trust studies by experts or academics, preferring to use questionable sources and unverified claims to declare the experts liars? People on social media or political forums arguing their partisanship and throwing insults to anyone who fails to take their opinion as "absolute truth"? Public "debate", what a joke. Consultation with people who know what they are talking about seems like a good idea to me. The only people who object to this are those who have made up their minds that racism is non-existent in Canada, or that only white people are discriminated against because "diversity" and "White Liberal Guilt".

Gosh, if only Canadians could "debate", rather than sticking to polarized, predetermined positions unaffected by reason, evidence, facts or rational thought.

I currently work for BC Gov and my pay is low enough that I am in JT's group of "working toward middle class"; as such I get a GST rebate. I had better pay and comparable benefits in the private sector. The pension, partial though it will be, will be helpful and as I am nearing retirement, its worth remaining. Plus the job I am doing now is interesting and challenging, which I like. BC is near the bottom or at the bottom of the pay scale for public employees. One person from our business unit went back to Ontario cause better wages, though she and her husband loved the BC "lifestyle".

Thanks for acknowledging that Democrats have at least some moral compass. If Republicans had enough of a moral compass to have stayed home out of "disgust", Trump would not be president.

We don't know what criteria was used. Maybe it was "Must be a Republican Judge guaranteed to raise objections from Democrats, personal integrity and behavior irrelevant".

My dad used to say "There'll always be logging, look at all the trees out there." I remember this because within his lifetime the industry was decimated due to pine beetle outbreak. The reason the pine beetle was able to destroy so many logging areas is because the long, very cold weather that used to kill them over the winter stopped happening. It doesn't really matter if the cause of global warming is entirely natural, entirely human-caused, or some combination of both, we have to address it. "Business as usual" isn't a solution to the problems that are coming and the sooner we quit arguing over "who's responsible" the better off we'll be.

When people are dying, they often get a burst of energy and seem suddenly much healthier shortly before they actually pass. So, maybe we've got a few good years left in us, but ultimately, without reversing this well-documented trend of global warming, whether initiated by humans or as part of a 'natural cycle', we're in trouble. I get why people want to 'deny' this, in any and all ways, because I'd like to deny it too. I like my life, my electronic toys, my gas-driven car, being warm and dry all winter, having a huge variety of food at cheap prices to enjoy all year. It's great. But it's not sustainable, even without the effects of climate change. We in the West are pretty comfortable, aren't we? But when our infrastructure fails us, when we are out of gas and out of food, we'll have no resources to fall back on. I think the people who are most likely to survive are those who've had minimal access to our comforts; those whose lifestyle already includes deprivation, the ability to do as much as possible with very little, and who can find the few places on earth that might still be livable. I also believe the earth will survive, and some life - even a few humans. Perhaps the legend, in 5 or 50 thousand years, will be that God visited floods and fire upon the earth, cleansed it and saved only the 'deserving' humans. Perhaps the lesson in this extinction will be that humans cannot ignore their own effects on the earth, and perhaps they'll learn that lesson. Or perhaps not. Perhaps a 'scorched earth' unable to support life will be the outcome. I won't be alive to know for sure, although I'll probably live long enough to have a better idea of where it will end up. I hope the IPCC is wrong and that they're motivation is really money, as you suggest. But when I see the accuracy of predictions made decades ago actually playing out today, I don't think they're wrong. That they haven't gotten 100% of those predictions correct isn't reason enough, for me, to disregard what they've accurately predicted.

Let me try this again, slowly and using as many one-syllable words as possible: The essay was not about Trump beyond his serving the ultimate goals of the Republican party. Your expectation that your opinion should be taken more seriously than someone who has spent a lifetime studying Nazi Germany is laughable. The arrogance of your assumption that a smattering of historical knowledge should qualify you to dismiss someone's life work is pretty astounding. This is on the same scale of breathtakingly stupid as people who still think vaccinations cause autism, that the earth is flat and that men never landed on the moon. Reply as you will, I have no interest in engaging with someone with as much hubris as you've demonstrated.