Leafless

BlackDog You wrote- " How would the government know whan someone violated this oath" Normally anyone with strong convictions would refuse to take this oath and would be identified as undesirable. But an oath in Canada I suspect would not never become a reality. This is the case in the federal public service where some Quebecers refused to take an oath of alegiance to the Queen of Canada and now that oath is simply a meaningless formality. This joke though is now on the federal government with many Canadians now harbouring absolutely no respect for this country.

August1991 You wrote- " Citizens who are born here don't have to take such a test or show or show any willingness to honour and uphild anything." Exactly and this does not say much concerning the integrety of the federal government of this country who protects all existing Canadian citizens under our Charter of rights and Freedoms and provides other ammenities to some citizens who's personal ideologies concerning loyality to Canada are non-existent or denounced or are in favour of loyality to another country. All Canadians and immigrants should be compelled to take an oath of allegiance to this country and it's Head of State.

Sparhawk You wrote- " Just because someone looks different it does not mean they have a different culture" True, but in many foreign countries including the West the reality is they do dicriminate on race or culture ... it's done all over the world. You wrote- " Not true. Most Europeans with brown or black hair could blend into the middle east if they wore clothing similar similar to what locals would wear. They would only be recognized as outsiders when they talk because they don't speak the local language." Again you are in a state of denial and are picking and chosing conditons but at least you admit the volatile word 'OUTSIDERS'. You wrote- " In other words, some cultures are strongly associated with a single race. However no culture is exclusively connected to a single race since culture is learned -not genetic. You are off the issue entirely and trying to confuse race and culture pertaining to cultural discrimination with the word 'exclusively' and something that is controversial but not discussed in this thread and that is the genetic aspect where there is no 'solid proof' pertaining to race.

cybercoma You wrote- " Good for him. I like Dalton Mc.Guinty.. he makes good decissions." He has an obligation to tax payers of Ontario to demonstrate leadership something Liberals know nothing about.

Sparhawk You wrote- " My opinion is race is irrevalent- culture is what makes the difference" No you are wrong. You can be discriminated on colour alone or you can be discriminated culturally. I could go to Iraq or Iran or a country in Africa I could almost immediately hated because of my White i.d. Culture is a component of race and many consider another's culture UNDESIREABLE. You wrote- " All of the marriages between two Whites have ended in divorce. So your anecdotal is proof of nothing." Mixed marriages automatically present another level concerning cultural incompatibility...I know the facts in my family ...Why don't you research the subject properly. What your forgetting due to the lack of diversity in many countries great emphasis is placed on religion and culture because that is all they have and they import those strong cultural sentiments to countries like Canada WHEN NOBODY CARES about your ancient traditions or obsolete cultural habits. You wrote- " You have to stop mixing up race and culture" Like I said before culture is a component of race and the two combined can serve as a volatile force against anyone who uses the in that manner against a majority race or culture like what the Muzlims are trying to do. That is why Canada is considering an oath concerning new immigrants.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " So what are your views on the 'mixing of the races'." I notice you are quick to define hate and supremacy when it is associated with the White race but have no problem with Sparhawks assertions. It sems to me that it is basically the 'White' countries are the host to large numbers of races other than White and most if these countries implement some kind of mutlcultural policies. But what do these other non-White countries offer to accomodate White immigration? Not much in my estimation. I would say there is a bias against Whites in most non-White countries concerning permanent residence. When non-White immigrants immigrate to White countries is this bias part of there racial baggage as well as in many cases their politcal baggage? Racial integration along with the sheding of all bias associated with imported culture is absolutely necessary concerning the success of a functional multicultural country where the primary race is White or in their country where the reverse is true. In our family we have two marriages involving other cultures and both ended in divorce due to unsolveable cultural problems both prompted by anti-white cultural traditons and hate. There are many other problems such as neighbourhoods and schools when they become dominated by a foreign culture, then others are considered the sub-culture and discriminated against. I notice both you despite being born here and Sparhawk posess anti-White sentiments. On the surface in a modern country like the U.S. and Canada you would assume integration would not be problamatic but is. This strikes me that until all countries in the world shed their cultural bias there will never be cultural harmony and since it is human nature to compete the weak link will always be cultural discrimination because no one likes to loose.

Sparhawk You wrote- " Your mytical 'White' race did not invent democracy: They learned it from India. Oh yes India the SUPERPOWER. Mythical White race- http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/

Black Dog You wrote- " Then what? You guys are great at the "blowing stuff up" phase. The "putting stuff back together" part? Not so much. The emphasis in all of this is called 'cooperation' and most if this could have been avoided if Saddam would have surrendered when given the chance but did not. Arab countries are demonstrating unreasonable aggression and will only lose in the long wrong. Why countries like Iraq and Iran want to retain and export hostilities instead of building and fluorishing to the best capabilities of those countries is the cause of problems.

This cartoon seems to reek of some sort of homo-Muslim revenge attack on Jews and Christianity. Where the hell are we going in this country? All were missing in this cartoon is the French connection.

An article in the Ottawa Citizen Fri. March 10/2006, page F1 titled "Mc.Guinty won't interfere in college strike" leaves a lot to be desired. Mc.Guinty said " I am saying to both sides 'don't count on our government to intervene in this matter.' They are big boys and girls. Their responsibility now is to act responsible and find a resolution. "It will be irresponsible for the parties involved to say 'we are just going to sit back, sit on our hands, allow students to remain outside their classes and wait for someone to resscue us from ourselves." What a load of crapolla! The premier is in a positon to do something but won't. But worse still the students are being screwed out of a quality school year and sit on their asses when they should be protesting or demand a return of their tuition fees. These teachers should be set straight, don't you think?

America1 You wrote- " If we go to war with Iran, I don't think you'll see the same type of soft handed approach that has been going on in Iraq." War is not pretty any time and I to think the U.S. wasted to much time and effort in trying to fight a 'humantarian' type war which did not produce the desired result and probably encouraged the type of aggression we now see in Iraq by initially going into that war with the gloves 'on'. Unfortunately to many people in Iraq this produced an weak image of the U.S. unable to fight despite their arsenal of high-tech weapons.

Black Dog You wrote- " Seems like a warning against aggression then an actual threat to initiate it." No, this can be interpreted as a direct threat as Iran knows very well what the findings were of the International Atomic Energy Agency and knows the UN is in the positon to impose sanctions. This is a serious threat and threatens the five permanent members of the security council Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. with the emphasis being on the U.S.

theloniusfleabag You wrote-" In theory capitalism can exist in any system, but in it's 'natural state' is anarchy, because any 'law' fetters decission making to some degree." Our version of democracy is the ONLY system when combined with capitalism allows EVERYONE or ANYONE to freely 'shoot for the top' in any area pertaining to buisness, proffessional occupations, medicine etc. So the bottom line is we are developed and implemented this proven system that works for most whether you think so or not. As a matter of fact it works so well we could actually be over developed supplying the initiative for new inventions, products etc. on a continual basis to share the pot with all who wish to participate. This could be why you have contempt for it as it is a massive successful system that uses a hell of a lot of resources.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " It has nothing to do with democracy" Democracy is the process by which we get ourselves organized to perform capitalism.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3583940 What could Iran possibly do to carry out this serious threat and how much longer will the West tolerate this type of aggression?

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " The "White Race" is pretty much the only one not to develop, but thrust forward as the only belief for everyone, the notion that " Whatever I have is not enough." This is pure contempt for the White Race, democracy and capitalism that has helped many countries who want to help themselves be part of the only system to date that works for most nations. I can't help but wonder whay your doing in a country that is so much against your principles?

Concerned You wrote- " If we give others the chance they will be equal to us in our successes in life." NO DOUBT! Any culture or race if fast tracked on the backs of a successful culture or race will eventually or fairly quickly be equal to that successful culture or race but at their expense. But this is not the point. It is initially developing that successful society is what we are talking about and loosley speaking it was the White race (not fully homogenous) but what is accepted as White that succeeded and they are not getting credit for that feat. You also wrote- " And some of us were better off to begin with than others, largely because of enviroment which doesn't mean we are supreme in any way." What enviroment?? What time frame are you talking about???

newbie You wrote- " If you should answer yes to any of the above, then you qualify as a racist. the internet is a huge resource and yet you pick a supremely racist site to answer my question or form a new one." My dictionary quotes racism as - " A belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this." And I said- " So I gather you find it racist for White America to be concerned about cultural control other than White in America." This is not advocating superiority but rather concern regarding the adverse direction a country could be driven by a race other than White that could be seen as destructive or eroding the values and system the country was built on by a primarily White population. The fact is the country was built by a primarily or what could be considered a primarily White population nor primarily Black, nor primarily yellow or anything else. And I also said- " Are you claiming that a certain race that makes very significant gains, technological and social areas should be void of any recogniton and should not stand out and be considered superior among other races." As compared to other races in our immediate time frame in history I would absolutely say the White race stands out as superior and advanced among other races and anyone that denies this fact is NOT giving credit to where it is deserved. You wanted to what the KKK stands for and I quoted you a link right from the horses mouth. If you don't it newbie -to bad. Post your own definiton of the KKK from your own source and be happy but don't call me a racist. What you don't understand is that I am offering only an opinion and not passing a judgement and am not personally discriminating against anyone. The dictionary definiton of racism leaves a lot to be desired.

tml12 You wrote- " Quebec has never been a multicultural society" I don't think it was never meant to be. Many french Canadians living in Quebec called for bilingualism, biculturalism, autonomy and equal staus. This resulted in the Liberals under Trudeau in 1969 a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. But this was never implemented because of to many Canadians disagreeing and the Bilingualism and Biculturalism policy was replaced with the Multiculturalism policy which at the time worked exclusively for Quebec inclunding implementing English and French as 'official languages'. The Charter also became a reality with even more power for Quebec. It is only relatively recent Canada's multiculturalism policy became commonly applied and directed towards immigrants.

theloniusfleabag You wrote " Why the hangup with 'dominance' again? Again this is vintage Hitler." Simply because this is what it is all about, power and dominance. Like I said it's been going on since the days of the caveman. The U.S. is the POWER TO-DAY that basically controls the world Dominating it with capitalism and protects free countries. Since the departure of Hitler and company we know of no other power or country that have tried to force major countries to live under their rule. Are you actually as naive to think that no other country would attemp or would dominate the world in the event the U.S. ever ceased to be a super power? You seem to bring up this Hitler thing all the time. Hitler was not the first to try to aggressively control countries or order genocide nor will he be the last.

Sparhawk- You wrote- " All human beings have a capacity for iniative and innovation that you talk about but only those humans with access to critical resources will be able to do much with those abilities." Are you suggesting since day one it was only the White race that had access to nutrients? You also wrote- " You cannot argue the failure of China over the last 400 years was genetic because the Chinese have demonstrated the ability to lead in the past and Chinese that adapt European values are very successful (look at Taiwan and Hong Kong.) If Taiwan and Hong Kong were so successful why did they have to resort to what you describe as European values and I also say U.S. (dynamic capitalist economy) and could not have achieved similar on their own?

uOttawaMan You wrote- " My whole point was referring to Argus who seems to believe that Canadians actually have an identity and culture to, to which he thinks all immigrants should be forced into." We do have a culture and identity and whether or not it happens to be an inherited U.S. identity and culture so what. The fact is immigrants settle in Canada's largest cities primarily Toronto. There they are surrounded by a large Canadian (U.S.) culture means they will be assimilated to a large degree and not sheltered like Quebec. But on the same hand by not having the federal government aggresively promote assimilation could or already has resulted in pockets of various cultures fractionating Canadians on a cultural basis which in my estimation could cause a serious conflict at some later time that could cause serious unity and or security problems on top of the Quebec one. Argus has a point!

Sparhawk You wrote- " It is no co-incidence that all great civilizations rose where the key staple crops ( wheat, rice, corn, potatoes) grew naturally." Wheat, rice, corn, potatoes? What does this have to do with the race-cultural-domination factor that has existed since the cave man days. If you ask me the root ingredient that makes a race successful is INITIATIVE along with the ability to pursue this in an organized and intelligent manner to develop methods and ways to dominate either in a peaceful or aggressive manner utilizing skills associated with science and technology. This is what separates the men from the boys.

uOttawaMan You wrote- " Lol and please explai to me what Canadian culture and idenity is because as far as I can tell in English Canada, it's Tim Horton's, hockey and anti-Americanism." Well, you almost got it right except for the anti-Americanism bit which is flavoured more in Quebec. What's the matter with mirroring the American culture as both countries were born of the same Queen and stock?

Sparhawk You wrote- " Differences in culture are not genetic but created by a combination of environment and pure random chance." I don't know if that could be considered anywhere near a correct statement. Cavemen for instance lived in groups and in the same environmnent but clashed with each other concerning a primitive power struggle to achieve dominance. What made a group successful was the type of primitive weapon and strategy they developed to conquer their foe. If it was simply environment issue like you say why did the Blacks simply not move to more fertile ground and source of other necessities? To-day groups who try to identify the cause to many problems to enhance or further develop their culture are restrained and called racist in their own damn country. A country will not progress in areas of dominance if national interest are diverted to say love and dancing rather than science an technology.