Leafless

Christianity is what we are talking about and does make it the largest religion in Canada, deserving of the 'national title', "Common to the nation". Definition #2-peculiar to or characteristic of a particular nation, verifies this even further. Tax wise, certainly, bigger group more tax revenues. Minorities? Don't you consider that a Liberal racist slur. If you don't, you should! It basically means minorities are of no significance or importance. Why don't you question your Liberal buddies about that one. Newspaper steer away from race/societal problems due to political correctness. But the media I am referring to are talk radio shows. And I will not cite them, for obvious reasons and being not Liberal, do not keep track of times and dates and who said what. Isn't free speech wonderful. The best advice I can give you is, if you have the opportunity, listen to them yourself. Now you are off in the lunatic region. What I originally said in post #64 was: "You don't have to be a rocket genius to see how harmful official multiculturalism is and how destructive it is relating prior to 1982, to the destruction of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadian, the ones who pay all the bills to allow this to happen." I won't back off realting to what I said, because without the tax money from majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the federal government would not have the financial means to implement official multiculturalism nor have the financial means to finance all the socialistic aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So what are you saying Renegade, that we would have official multiculturalism, official languages, minority language rights, rights of the Aboriginal people, if it was all left up solely to the minorities to finance??? I am getting sick and tired of your racist shots and it is evident you belong to some type of degenerate minority ethnocentric group, which could explain your extreme prejudice. Observations, intelligent discussion, talk shows, many media reports relating to the the fraudulent ways of the Liberals and being subjected and treated like a third class citizen in an undemocratic country mostly governed by the Liberals that mirror a corrupt banana republic.

How can you possibly compare the aspect of abusing free speech when the country already incorporates laws relating to hate and discrimination? I think currently there are 27 on-going CHRC "hate speech" complaints. In the eyes of some therefore there is "abuse" of speech taking place. That's nice. So as Canadians, how do we protect ourselves against abuses from CRTC and the Federal Government itself? Abuses could include federal propaganda to gather public support to implement unreasonable, preplanned anti-free speech laws that directly affect basic freedoms. Why are Canadians bring charged and punished for ideas that are deemed by prosecutors or other bureaucrats to be anti-gay, anti-Muslim, racist, or just vaguely "hateful" or "discriminatory." And the punishment for breaking these Canadian laws is initiated not by some threatening behavior or act of physical provocation, it is imposed exclusively for the expression of ideas which the State has decided should be outlawed and criminalized. Banning free speech could create the catalyst for a more direct approach that could induce outright violence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2( guarantees freedom of expression in the following terms: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can you possibly compare the aspect of abusing free speech when the country already incorporates laws relating to hate and discrimination? CRTC has no barriers relating to the aspect of incorporating and promoting discriminatory or racial discriminatory laws or regulations directed at 'the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians' and is backed up by the charter to do exactly that. "Section 27 states: This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." This is similar to 'official language legislation in the Charter', Sec. 16(3) which states: " Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status and use of English or French" and we KNOW they ARE NOT talking about the promoting the equality or status of the English language but are talking about the forced promotion of the French language. I don't think the government has a right to undemocratically socially engineer Canadian society with extreme legislation without incorporating the 'will of Canadians'. Obviously it has no intention of incorporating a democratic process or Canadians would have been included initially relating to constitutional amendments specifically being the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

"When is a Christian radio station not a Christian radio station? For the hour or so a day that it must air the views of other faiths to satisfy the CRTC's "balance" policy." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I have heard of everything. CRTC is now dictating conditions to religious broadcasting, relating to their 'balance policy'. I thought freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom, according to Sec. 2(a) of our Charter. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...00-f09799f51005

Believe me, I don't envy Mr. Harper and wish him the best of luck, especially being forced to participate within a dysfunctional political system caused primarily by the 'clash of English vs. French ideologies defined by Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals under the guise of culture. When one is in politics...it is hard to remain quite principled, I guess. Let us be realistic. I am realistic. It was you using wrong terminology all along relating to 'principled'. Anyways, I am glad we agree.

So, you feel this makes Harper a principled man while neglecting the fact Canada has over 80 treaty level defence agreements with the U.S. Maybe Mr. Harper simply had no choice. Perhaps the U.S. would be rebuffed no further by the actions of previous Liberal governments. http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/content.asp...1065FCED902F%7D http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/agree_e.asp

All the nationals examples you gave are associated with the government of the land. National does not have to be associated with government as the very definition tells all. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines national as: "of or common to a nation or the nation. 2.-peculiar to or characteristic of a particular nation." So there is nothing wrong to the labelling of Christianity as a 'national religion' to which the majority of Canadians belong to. A national religion is not a state religion. Besides there are many names with national in it you can use without it being associated with government like: National Pizza, National Farm supplies, National grocers Assoc. etc. No not at all. Canadian Women's hockey team has simply proven that their competitiveness out done all others relating to this competitive sport. This is something to be proud of, but does not contribute to "the betterment of all Canadians". If a multitude of others have observed what you did and there have been reports in the media of this and has been the subject of radio talk shows then yes. How else can society relate to important racial/societal controversial issues when government hides the statistics that could prove 'official multiculturalism' has failed. "Of the first importance" is not a word. So in this case to mean what that definition means we will use the word 'fundamentally'. Now this of course 'fundamentally' indicates there are secondary concerns but I simply did not mention them, since the second source is fairly insignificant and controversial in the sense that the secondary source could actually be a liability. So until government makes available (if ever) the proper statistics I can hold the view I think properly represents the issue. Until the time comes government supplies these statistics per capita by race, we will never know other than the information I suppled previously relating to the only tools society has to confirm its suspicions of irregularities pertaining to race/societal issues.

It is like what provincial Conservative leader John Tory said: "the program was another example of the "repeated disdain" the Liberal government has shown for taxpayer money. "The standard here is set by the boss," suggested Mr. Tory, who said Mr. McGuinty must accept responsibility for the lack of spending controls in the grant program."

It is not being pinned on Mr. Harper's door but it simply the fact Mr. Harper is carrying on 'the totalitarian tradition' when you said Mr. Harper is a principled person. The last referendum we had excluding Quebec's referendums on separation is the referendum in 1992 on proposed constitutional changes in the Charlottetown Accord. There is proof right there that referendums can be allowed but politicians prefer totalitarian rule and do not want Canadians to be part of a democratic process in allowing the 'will of Canadians' to trump politicians decissions.

A government controlling the country with little or NO democratic input by its citizens especially relating to amendments to our constitution. I have to admit that I haven't been following current political news lately. Can you be specific as to why you think we are now being run by a totalitarian government? We have always been run by a Federal Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy but as been made that much worse since amending our constitution in 1982 with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'. We have very little real democracy in this country.

Being "principled" as in opposed to being self-serving. Uprightness. With integrity. Motivated by the belief of doing what is right. Motivated by the belief of doing what is right. Interesting, but again these beliefs must be based on something and if it is NOT based on morals or a defined standard of rightness, 'principled' cannot really be used. Therefore all politicians in Canada would be classified as 'unprincipled' since none follow morals or a defined standard of rightness. Would you agree or disagree that this is the case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adj. 1. principled - based on or manifesting objectively defined standards of rightness or morality; "principled pragmatism and unprincipled expediency"; "a principled person" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principled -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The awarding of more than $32-million in grants to more than 100 ethnic and cultural groups in Ontario over the past two years by the Liberal government was conducted through a process that "was not open, transparent or accountable," the provincial Auditor-General concluded yesterday." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds familiar, like some type of cultural scam, typical with the Liberals. But fear not Mr. Mc.Guinty said: "I want to apologize to the people of Ontario" Duh, gee thanks Dalton! http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...58-f3f30e6edce3

Funny, I never hear you complain about our undemocratic 'Charter' which is a racist policy entrenched in our constitution that affect the rights and well being of an unknown number of Canadians and their livelihood and being a lot worse then what you interpret this thread as being a racist smear attack.

Pertaining to the fact Canada has no state religion and practices separation of church and state, from this view yes, Canada could be considered a secular state. But pertaining to the citizens of Canada, Canada does have a national religion, namely Christianity supported by the large percentage of the population of Canada followed by an assortment of minority religions. Contributing by being forced to pay taxes and holding a job that pays dollars for doing that job and how those dollars are spent does not necessarily mean that everyone contributes for the betterment of all Canadians. Their are many factors to consider to determine if your net contributions don't outweigh your liabilities. If your liabilities outweigh your contributions then your tax dollars do not benefit for the benefit of all Canadians. No, 'primarily' simply means 'of the first importance'. I previously included a link relating to the Canada's ethnicity factor and if you recheck it you can calculate what percentage minorities pay, pertaining to the provinces of Ontario and Alberta. I agree and think it is time for government to publish these numbers so Canadians can see exactly where their tax dollars are going relating to 'official multiculturalism' and cultural expenditures in all provinces in Canada.

Comparison? Do you mean to compare with the principles of Churchill or Clinton etc.? Do you mean he has principles just like so-and-so...but they're different? To whom do you compare your own principles? Why does it need to have any comparision? Then I must ask you what your definition of 'principled' is before we can go any further.

A government controlling the country with little or NO democratic input by its citizens especially relating to amendments to our constitution.

Serious issues are not everything government will decide to do. Are you satisfied with politicians decision relating to 'official bilingualism in our federal public service? Are you satisfied with politicians unilateral decision relating to the passage of 'official multiculturalism'? Are you satisfied with politicians decision to unilaterally repatriate our constitution from England? Are you satisfied with politicians unilaterally amending our constitution with the Charter? Then their are other important issues relating to Aboriginals and minorities. Do you actually feel comfortable with the government changing the direction of the country WITHOUT your INPUT.

Anything that affects all Canadians, especially constitutional amendments, similar to what they do in the U.S. Canada is not at war. We are participating as an ally pertaining to a war on terrorism, which is not an act of war against Canada. But this brings up an interesting question. Canada suddenly jumped (relatively ill equipped broken down military) from a peace keeping role to an active role against terrorism because Mr. Harper felt we can do it. Is this a good thing? I don't think it is a good thing for the simple reason due to neglect by the Liberal government of Canada's military, it would be simply unrealistic to participate with an under equipped military. This simply illustrates what totalitarian rule can do to a country relating to its military. This is why we need a lot more democratic representation by Canadian citizens to avoid the situation Mr. Harper encountered with a decayed military. Their are many other similar issues that should have required democratic participation rather than place the onus on what could be 'faulty' undemocratic totalitarian rule. This is a major fault with multiculturalism and why it should never have been implemented initially, especially being entrenched in our constitution.

N0 of course not. England GAVE us Canada and we inherited Christianity as well as the English Common-Law system of criminal and civil law, with the Queen as 'head of state', until 1982 with Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'. This of course is when Provincial judges and Supreme Court judges becoming social activist overriding democratic decisions our provincial and federal government and adding a new element 'culture' that overshadowed the democratic norm that allowed Canadian citizens themselves to create cultural norms. England were the victors and as far as I know not many complained of that fact, but you. Natives were a conquered people, and were free like anyone else to participate in Canadian society and still are. To bad Renagade but Trudeau did NOT create Canada, it has ALWAYS belonged to the White English speaking Christian majority. This must have burnt him real bad and why he chose to develop and undemocratically impose that traitorous, racial discriminatory Charter. The Charter is a traitorous, racially discriminatory document invented by an arrogant, jealous, envious French minority politician namely P.E. Trudeau. This is one the dumbest statements I have ever heard anywhere. Can you prove what your saying? This is almost like saying that the hijackers who drove airliners into the World Trade Center, contributed to the American economy by taking advanced flying lessons from private U.S. companies. What I said was " main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are PRIMARILY White English speaking Christian Canadians and they are paying all the cost. So I did say they are primarily paying all the cost. Taxes ethnic minorities pay probably would not cover their welfare and hospital cost. I have been visiting hospitals lately and I can guarantee ethnic minorities being treated for illnesses grossly over represent their tiny population here in Canada. Hospitals are full of them and have been for many years.

Without a referendum, of course it means he is pandering to those who think the same way as there is no proof to prove otherwise. It is apparent you are condoning and are content with the actions of a PM leading a totalitarian government rather than a democratic one. So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

YES! OUR country was FOUNDED on Christianity. Yes, pertaining to horrific dangers of ethnic sabotaging national interest via foreign religion/politics. It is a lot more than the denomination of a church. It is Canada being characterized by foreign ideologies and cultures STEALING the 'White English speaking Christian Canadians' culture and worst of all, condoned by national federal parties who are forced to idolize the worst racially discriminatory Charter ever imposed on Canadians. First of all, who is we? Do you speak for Canada? I doubt very much if Hindu's will work for all Canadians. These people come from societies with few diversities and their religion/politics is the name of the game. It is human nature to take as much as possible for your own benefit and own self interest Example and proof: Quebec and Ontario's Islamic Muslims that despite their small numbers tried to impose Sharia Law in Ontario. Multiculturalism is only really starting in Canada since Quebec got what it wanted and now the focus is on immigration and foreign culture to further destabilize Canada. Even Jews who have contributed to Western society still remain segregated and mostly mingle among their own kind. They weren't Liberal but continue to play by the screwed up rules of our totalitarian society, rules set by the Liberals racially discriminatory and bordering traitorism 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'. Go ahead and embarrass me. The main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians. My information relating to ethnicity is that Canada is 66% White, 59.3% English speaking and 66% Christian. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107386.html

You mean something like this: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCHor this: link Laying a corner stone in 1877 pertaining to a domestic religion at that time goes to show you government acknowledged the efforts of Christianity to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society we had up until 1982. This is the time the Liberals stole the show, undoing all the previous work accomplished by our federal government and Christianity, with the emphasis now forced on CULTURE including of course foreign religion. Mulroney with his involvement opening Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. is just as much an error in judgement as Mr. Harper. Both were pandering for votes but at the same time could be participating in a much more serious way by acknowledging and setting the stage for the takeover of Canada by powerful religions following the footsteps of Quebec and not discounting the fact the takeover of Canada could be by Quebec. The Liberals imposed Charter helped Quebec enormously in many ways and the spread of their minority language in the same fashion the Charter will set the path for a ethnic takeover of Canada. You don't have to be a rocket genius to see how harmful official multiculturalism is and how destructive it is relating prior to 1982, the destruction of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the ones that pay all the bills to allow all this to happen. Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE, but yet it is happening while Whitey sits backs and allows it to happen.

Yes, of course. This IS along the same lines as Islamic terrorist and Canadian immigration policies. Allowing terrorism to achieve political victories cannot be condoned. Failure to take a stand, is promoting their objectives. What do Jews have to do with anything, in the way of terrorist activity? Have Jews not been loyal to Canada and have contributed greatly to Western society?

Principles? Tell us again, real slow, why Canada is in Afghanistan? Of course this has nothing to do with pandering to the U.S. and it's interest.

But you can't back it up. The point is you are attacking another poster for the simple reason, you don't like what you read and you cannot respond to it in an intelligent manner. That makes it an attack on free speech as well as the poster. If you have any credibility, you would explain why no other prime minister in the history of Canada has done what Mr. Harper has done, pander for votes in a Hindu holy temple or any other place of worship in Canada. Most Canadians have morals and ethics and expect their PM'S to also harbour those values. Well if your not White, that clearly explains your actions for not condemning Mr. Harpers actions. If you are White then you are simply a low bred fool. I think I am being reasonable intolerant since no other country has 'official multiculturalism' entrenched in their constitution and if you think about, you must ask yourself, WHY? For instance, simply look at the great strides Quebec made in Canada, at the expense of Canadians simply by manipulating politicians. Think of what all the other cultural groups will do in Canada following the footsteps of Quebec and already a tiny ethnic minority has already tried implementing Sharia Law in Ontario. Other countries in the world know what Canada is doing with 'official multiculturalism' is bound to fail and failure is inevitable, segregation is inevitable, especially with a volatile mix of ethnics and their powerful religions. Jews play by the rules and they don't fly airliners into the 'World Trade Center' and have contributed much to Western culture. BTW- I don't have an ignore list but I am making this an exception in your case and will not be replying to anymore of your disruptive arrogant, unsubstantial, child like, immature postings, not only in this thread but notice the same type of attacks relating to many other posters as well.