Leafless

Donald Rumsfeld is bearing the brunt of 'a screwed up Iraq war' though no fault of his own but is owed directly to a backward Iraq insurgency. Perhaps the initial fault in all of this is that the U.S. and it's allies did not come down hard enough on Iraq initially and eliminate more of the source relating to insurgents. Sometimes a more humane lighter war along along with allowing the population to sort out it's internal problems, does not pay as is the case with Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld served his country well and served as both the youngest and the oldest Secretary of Defense and is a shame to see this man sidelined and forced to resign in this manner. Condescending media reports are already beginning to surface as Mr.Rumsfeld legacy being "the guy who mucked up Iraq" being absolutely shameful. Looks like Mr. Rumsfeld biggest mistake was ignoring the importance of all those 'virgins in heaven'. http://www.fcw.com/article96755-11-08-06-Web http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm

Is this supposed to be interpreted as a racist comment or is it simply Don cherry has a general dislike to visors worn by hockey players?

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hardners post #39 in this thread quotes: "Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's the whole thing concerning Muslims and their violent terrorist attacks is that they are BASED on their religion, Islam. So the fact is anyone being an Arab Muslim is considered a believer of Islam, as that is the definition of Muslim. If Michael suggest Muslims being arrested and placed in internment camps is a bad thing simply because they are Muslim then in fact he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs" or he would not be saying such a thing about a religion that is NOT docile. The only aspect that remains is to prove that any certain Muslim is a fanatic or extremist which is impossible to prove even in the best of time much less a time of extreme violence. This is why it could be quite possible all Muslims could be rounded up and placed in internment camps as part of a national security effort if conditions presented no other viable option.

What is the racist remark you find so offensive?

Don Cherry is an entertainer and not a politician and says a lot of disparaging remarks as well as interesting concerning the world of hockey and this is what makes the guy so hilarious as well as an authority in hockey commentaries. Those who can't laugh at yourself occasionally, then they have a problem not Don Cherry.

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine. Who is talking about internment camps based on religion. Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned? My response to "who is talking about internment camps" was relating to post #38:QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Nov 6 2006, 09:09 AM) Leafless - it's unclear from your post if you're referring to Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity, or merely people suspected of being Arab Muslims. "This of course would be at the discretion of federal government. No one currently knows what level of severity Canadians would be exposed to or the duration or continuation, concerning an Islamic terrorist attack or attacks. Normally speaking if such a word is applicable in a situation like this Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity probably would be primarily targeted." Michael Hardner seems to be defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious believes and therefore it is unreasonable for Muslims to be rounded up and placed in internment camps. This of course is ridiculous and like what I pointed out previously in this thread it would probably be the level of violence associated with the number of attacks that would determine if ALL Muslims should be placed in internment camps in Canada.

Hockey commentator Don Cherry was booed in parliament during question period when Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House, decided to recognize the controversial commentator's presence who was sitting in the visitor's section. Conservative party whip, Jay Hill said he'd specifically asked the Speaker to recognize Cherry, calling him a "distinguished Canadian.'' How immature can French Canadian MP's be that you be to so badly despise a hockey commentator entertainer that you boo him in parliament after being asked by the 'Speaker of the House' to recognize Mr. Cherry as a "distinguished Canadian". I never heard howls of protest from English speaking MP's concerning why the 'Bloc' a separatist party is allowed to ply their separatist political business in parliament against the political interest of Canada with salaries paid by Canadian tax payers. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...548&k=39171

This is almost laughable as it is tax payers in the (Rest of Canada) ROC that are really doing what the Quebec government says it's doing concerning financial support to Francophone's in French speaking communities outside of Quebec. In fact ROC is really condescending in describing other provinces in Canada, as if Quebec is somehow the dominant province in a position to refer to other Canadian provinces as the rest of Canada. "Premier Jean Charest says Quebec has a responsibility to support French-speaking communities across Canada because it’s the only place in North America where francophone's form a majority." This is also untrue as Francophone's don't form a majority anywhere in Canada as Quebec being a province like all other provinces in Canada must base it's French population calculations related to the whole or all of of Canada. It's like making a comparison of ten Blacks and one White in an elevator and while in the elevator the Blacks are the majority but when the doors open to the REAL world Whites are the majority in Canada. But in Quebec's case there isn't any elevator. "Recent census numbers suggest that francophone communities outside Quebec are gradually being assimilated by English-speaking majorities." This whole assimilation bit is absolute nonsense because most Quebecers who speak English have been assimilated or they would refuse to speak English period, like the choice the majority of English speaking Canadians have chosen and that is not to speak French period. That's the beauty of assimilation as a smaller group is absorbed into a larger group and not the other way around a larger group absorbed into a smaller group, something that does not make sense but something the Liberals initially implemented with official bilingualism in the federal public service and federal entities. This Quebec funding is something the PM should look into as it creates a conflict of interest where as tax payers of Canada are forced to contribute to the support of French communities outside of the regular amenities offered by Canadian society in general. I suspect this funding would be against equality rights and makes a fool out of the federal government. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...9ef&k=77264

No, Levesque wanted a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. When he didn't get that, in part because Trudeau had promised a renewed Confederation during the referendum campaign, Levesque negotiated in good faith to renew Canada's confederation. Seven provincial governments initially agreed with Levesque's proposals until that is, the night of the long knives. Trudeau couldn't promise what the other premiers of Canadian provinces did not want. Levesque was acting like a spoiled little child as what the premiers agreed to was to simply to repatriate the constitution without opening it up and making any changes at that time. He could not even agree to that and why could he not realize there are other provinces in Canada just as important as Quebec who have just as much voice as Quebec concerning any constitutional changes and that Trudeau was powerless to do anything about it. A little of the point, but a hotel is the last place to wrangle out important decision making, concerning our constitution.

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine. Who is talking about internment camps based on religion. We are talking about internment camps based on horrific acts of violence directed to the general population of Canada and in this instance caused by Arab Muslim terrorism. It seems you are trying to justify religion, in this instance, believers of Islam as a justifiable EXCUSE for acts of terrorism without authorities assuming direct action to curb their violence including the use of internment camps.

'Obsession': The threat of radical Islam a new documentary consisting of footage shot inside the confines of radical Islam. -When a 3 1/2year old Muslim girl was asked if she knew about the Jews, she replied yes, that they are derived from pigs and monkeys and that she hated them. -Hezbollah fighters thrusting out their arms in the same fashion as Nazi storm troupers. - How many radical Muslim fundamentalist are there, 195,000,000-650,000,000 devoted to our destruction. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus110706.htm

This of course would be at the discretion of federal government. No one currently knows what level of severity Canadians would be exposed to or the duration or continuation, concerning an Islamic terrorist attack or attacks. Normally speaking if such a word is applicable in a situation like this Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity probably would be primarily targeted.

Your right, Quebec never had a veto. "The late-night bargaining included another change: the deal dropped Levesque's prized opting-out clause, which would have allowed the province to opt out of shared federal-provincial programs but receive equivalent funds to set up its own programs. Levesque, across the river in Hull, was not informed of the unfolding events. When he arrived late for a premiers’ breakfast the next morning, he found that a new deal had been drafted during the night. Lévesque was incensed. "We had been betrayed, in secret, by men who hadn’t hesitated to tear up their own signatures, and without their even taking the trouble to warn us," Lévesque said, though he, too, had broken their pact by agreeing to a referendum. The new deal was signed by Trudeau and nine of the premiers that morning. Only Lévesque refused to endorse it. Lévesque didn’t say anything. He just got up from his chair, spun around, and walked out." http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisC...id=3〈=E So, what is the purpose of this thread as we all know what Levesque really wanted was separation?

I guess it's not 'wrong' to discuss anything. But surely you realize that what you're suggesting is revolting to a great many people, and would never be implemented. Is this a lame attempt to censor free speech? Are you actually suggesting suspected Arab Muslims should never be considered to be rounded up up and interned in the event of of Islamic based terrorist attacks? Our federal government previously had plans to intern certain Canadians in the past and why would you ever assume suspected Arab Muslims would not be rounded up in the event of Arab Muslim terrorist attacks. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...edc&k=16908

This is a difficult question to answer as there is no official war declared on a Western country by Islamic Arab countries and Canada continues to accept Muslims from Arab countries. But in saying this, Israel a Western ally is recovering from an induced extremist Hamas attack. I think Canada has painted itself into a corner on this one and it would be interesting to see what position Canada would take in the event of an Islamic based terrorist attack.

Saddam's trial had a very predictable outcome. But will Saddam's hanging only increase sectarian violence or will Iraq's come to grips and readjust their violent behavior and seek out a peaceful resolution rather than continue to reduce their country to a further pile of rubble. I think they will choose the latter. Thoughts? http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

I suspect interest in topics by members on this site is primarily owed to several common denominators. Therefore I double dog dare everyone to come clean concerning important personal characteristics, the main ones being: 1.- What do you consider culturally important: (a) the majority language of Canada ( or your minority language concerning your minority culture? ( What is your skin colour? 2.- How long have you been a Canadian citizen? 3.- Are Western ideologies the main theme of your life as being a Canadian or are you more interested in cultural aspects concerning your natural origin? 4.- Do you think religion in Canada plays an important part in providing society a form of spiritual and moral order. 5.- What political party do you support? For instance I am White and speak only the majority English language and basically know for a fact, it is all I require living in Canada and deplore the fact of forceful federal government intrusion trying to bilingualize the country with a language of no commercial use, French. I have been a Canadian citizen all my life with family dating back to 1871. I think our Canadian history and Western ideologies form an important part of our Canadian identity and even though I am part English, French, Irish and German means nothing to me concerning my life as a Canadian citizen. I am happy with U.S. social influence and the impact it has in defining our country. I do think there is no replacement for spiritual guidance in Canada and is lacking badly, as is proven with a dramatic decline concerning the moral fabric and values in Canada. Politically speaking Canada I think Canada's political system has been Liberalized to the point of Canada being politically dysfunctional. This in my mind is extremely dangerous and leaves any other political party trying to de-liberalize the country in an awkward if not impossible situation to change that. Presently I support Conservative initiatives as I feel the country as swung much to far left in a manner that supports emotion rather than economic viability.

Is this what official multiculturalism is doing to Canada and that is slowly turning the country into a police state. It looks like on top of everything else relating to multiculturalism, taxpayers will possibly be on the hook to protect cultures from attacking one another within the confines of this country. Is cultural tensions all we have to look forward in this country. If it is, then I suggest it's added ammunition to scrap official multiculturalism and take a good hard look at what certain types of immigration is doing to this country. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...832&k=69796

Actually, I think my question could capture the idea of God never having 'revealed' itself. I don't think you know what your talking about. The only reason atheist flourish in our free and democratic society is because you are protected under an evolved advanced Christian society in our part of the world. Do you actually think society would have evolved in the relative peaceful, organized manner it did without religion? You cannot possibly answer that question because you have absolutely no proof. Even relating to morally depressed Russia where alcoholism is a huge problem, Russia is still greatly influenced from other countries of the world, concerning all levels of advancement relating to the influence of religion in those other countries. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1534076

How about, WE ALL ARE ALIENS!

How do you know it's a failure when it's never been implimented. Why should every person have the right to vote? Isn't it better for society if we have only intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful voters? I agree with Argus, as the more one is politically informed, the less of a chance of one being duped in by manipulative politicians. But some of the time political parties and politicians do what they want anyways, as evident with years of Liberal rule. This of course creates a dysfunctional political system like what we have presently in Canada and it seems to me some Canadian voters ARE extremely naive and uninformed as to not politically punish the perpetrators in a more permanent fashion, who are primarily the cause of Canada's dysfunctional political system. Relating to polls this is not the case as the leaderless Liberals are riding almost has high as the Conservatives. This has led me to believe that perhaps Canadians have been so politically conditioned (due to being politically ignorant) to believe massive political corruption combined with soothing socialistic offerings is what Canadians want, backed up by hundreds of deceiving polls and policies such as the flawed and divisive official multiculturalism in favour of Liberal ideologies.

Do you have no idea how silly that comment is? No sillier than the expression on the face of an atheist when confronted with a question that defies logic.

Funny you should mention that, as the the ideal "melting pot" society hasn't been able to solve its problems with minority urban youth either, despite a head start of a hundred years or so. What area of society are you concerned about that in your mind U.S. society has failed minority urban youth in the U.S.?

God did straighten us out initially when he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden to face all the miseries earth has to offer.

Most countries are built on religion and supported by their governments. Canada is the only country in the WORLD that has an official multicultural policy in which the federal government no longer supports it's majority religion Christianity because of this policy. When the government of a land purposely destroys it's majority religion because of it's inability to create meaningful investment and has to rely on pickpocketing ethnic small businessmen, you can be assured the country is in for serious problems.