gc1765

The problem is there is no way to debate such a vague statement as "multiculturalism fans the flames of racism & bigotry" without being more specific. How would you respond if I started a thread entitled "Christianity fans the flames of racism & bigotry". How would you even begin to debate that? Sure, you are entitled to express your opinions on this forum, but unless you back up your opinions, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Just as no one would take me seriously if I posted "Christianity fans the flames of racism & bigotry" with nothing to back that up. Quebec nationalism has been around prior to 1982, so how has quebec nationalism taken away from Canadian nationalism since 1982? Do you want to address my previous question now: I asked "How are immigrants steering Canadians away from loyalty to our country"? and how is that a bad thing? In response to your most recent post, I would ask you How have immigrants contibuted to the decay of Canadian nationalism? If you can't answer those questions, it will be impossible to have a debate.

Ben Mulroney, Don Cherry, Margaret Atwood (only cause I had to read one of her books in high school), or Hedy Fry....hmmmmmmm tough choice. Don Cherry?

In theory, if more people took public transit then it would come more often and there would be more routes, thereby making it faster. If you live in the suburbs, it's pretty hard to get to the city by transit. But where I live, in the city, I can get to work by bus in 10 minutes, plus 5 minutes waiting for a bus. Driving, by the time you find a parking spot and pay for parking, ends up taking about the same amount of time. Yet people around here drive to work anyways. I'm not sure why when it's easy to take the bus, and much cheaper. Not to mention it's probably safer, better for the environment, causes less traffic jams and requires less road maintenance.

According to CBC, only Iggy, Rae, Dion & Kennedy will be at the convention. There must have been some sort of cutoff, but I'm not sure what the cutoff is. EDIT: maybe not...I thought cbc said only 4 were going to the convention, but maybe they meant only 4 have a realistic chance at the convention?

Master of the obvious, eh? If one of the three don't back off to kickstart an ABIggy movement, Ignatieff has it in the bag. Is it possible for you to have an intelligent debate without resorting to belittling sarcasm? The question is, how much of an impact will the support of one candidate (eg kennedy) for another have? Is it enough to convince enough delegates not to vote for iggy?

Just because Kennedy or Dion drop out and back someone other than ignatieff doesn't necessarily mean that their delegates will follow suit.

Huh? I've asked you several times to back up your statements with arguments and examples, yet you keep making these statements with no argument or example. It's pretty hard to have a debate when there is nothing there to debate. The reason I am asking you is because I'd like to have a debate, but like I said you are not providing me with anything to debate. I don't know how else to get my point across, so take this example...if I made a statement such as "Christianity is responsible for the majority of murders in Canada", you would probably want me to back up that statement using reasoned arguments, right? Otherwise it's pretty hard to debate, isn't it? (disclaimer: I am not actually making such a statement, just using it as an example) In order to explain any absence of nationalism & patriotism (assuming there is any) I would need to have a comparison to a time when Canadians had more nationalism & patriotism. Since I haven't noticed any decrease in these things in my lifetime, there is no way I could answer that question, sorry. But if you think that immigrants are steering Canadians away from loyalty to our country, please explain how they are doing so, and why it is a bad thing.

I never said that. Why should I provide you with a link to prove something that I never claimed to be true? And how are immigrants "steering" the majority of Canadians away from their culture? I live in a city with a lot of immigrants with many different cultures, but never has anyone forced me away from my own culture. Yet another bold statement from Leafless without a single argument/example to back it up.

Aside from language (which I believe that immigrants should learn at least one of our official languages), how are immigrants having their own culture "intruding" on other cultures? That has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Violence is already illegal. Of course immigrants must obey the law of the country they are emigrating to, no one is arguing that they shouldn't.

Maybe not, but it's in the old testament...if you believe in the old testament.

You're probably right. I actually think kennedy has the best chance of winning the next election. It's too bad that a lot of the delegates won't see it that way though. They'll probably vote for either rae or iggy instead, who don't have as good of chance at winning. But, let's hope I'm wrong...

I think that either kennedy or dion have a pretty good chance at winning the next election (and rae is polling surprisingly well, so he might do better than expected if elected leader). But just because someone has the best chance of winning the election, doesn't mean they will win the leadership.

I support kennedy, but unfortunately I still disagree with you. If Dion is the first to go, a lot of his support is from quebec, and quebec does not have a lot of support for kennedy. His support will likely go to rae or iggy (probably due to the french factor). If there is enough 'anyone but iggy', then rae just might win it. Of course, I could be wrong...

He has a few issues on his website Link (not really a comprehensive platform though)

Build a graph. On the Y access, put the numbers of those who are "uncomfortable", as you put it, with different cultures. Now on the X access, put the number of "others" who are coming into a given area. You will unquestionably find a diagonal line running up the graph. In other words, discomfort with the otherness of foreigners rises with the number of foreigners around you. Many people are okay with a few people of different cultures. Far fewer are comfortable with large numbers of foreigners among them. The more you bring in, the more anger, resentment, and racism and bigotry you will find. This is basic human nature. You can dismiss them all as bigots, if you like. That is an old tactic of the Left, who are, after all, morally superior to mere mortals, but it doesn't change reality. You didn't really address my argument. You could easily build a graph, but put intolerance on the y-axis, and put 'how much do you believe that others should not be allowed to have their own culture' (ie opposed to multiculturalism) and you'll see that the people opposed to multiculturalism are opposed to it because they are intolerant. Or better yet, take a group of people who believe that others should be entitled to their culture, and then plot your graph, you will find that the number of people "uncomfortable" with different cultures is zero no matter how many "others" are in the area. Take a group of people opposed to multiculturalism, and plot the same graph, you will get a slope as you described. Our society is a mixture of those two types of people, so average out those two plots and yes you will see a diagonal line but that has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Once again, it's not multiculturalism that is the problem, it is people opposed to (ie intolerant of) multiculturalism.

Those who are intolerant of people who are different than them are the same people who want immigrants to assimilate (since then they won't be as different). Those who tolerate differences in culture are the ones who don't care if an immigrant retains their old culture, and therefore support multiculturalism. So you see, the problem isn't multiculturalism, it's people who are opposed to multiculturalsim because they don't like people who are different. Are you saying that hudreds of years ago, Natives should not have allowed immigrants (ie european immigrants) into this country because it would foster racism? Or is it ok for your ancestors (assuming you are non-native) to immigrate into this country and have a different culture than natives, but not ok for another culture to immigrate here and retain their culture?

Read the 9/11 commission report. You can find a copy of it Here Here's some select quotes:

Bush was specifically told that hussein had no ties to 9/11. It wasn't bad intelligence, it was a lie.

You have to admit, that lie was nothing compared to bush's lies that saddam hussein was connected to al qaeda and 9/11.

The governor general still has the power to invite a party to form a government without an election, especially if the previous government fell shortly after an election. That's not really undemocratic since the composition of parliament is not changing, and any legislation would still require the support from a majority of those MPs. By next spring, I would say it's not too early for another election, but if the government had fallen over it's budget I would say it is well within the power of the governor general to invite the opposition to form a government. I don't see how michaelle jean is unqualified to do that pretty simple task. Is there some other experience or qualifications that you would look for in a person to be able to decide when it is too soon for another election?

How important do you think it is to the average Canadian who the governor general is? I'm guessing most people couldn't care less, they know it's primarily a ceremonial role that will have no influence on their lives. Even those who might care, I doubt it will be enough to influence their vote. Also, michaelle jean is popular in quebec, why would the bloc criticize someone who is so popular in their province?

I don't think any party wants to fight an election on amending the constitution. Nor do I think that many people care enough about who is GG to have it affect how they vote.

Which defining issue? Changing the role of/Removing the GG?

Iggy has a bigger lead than I expected, I thought it would have been closer between the top three. So the big question is, is this lead enough to overcome the "anyone but iggy" effect? I also thought rae would have been ahead of dion, so which one of those two will be eliminated first?

Because ... because they didn't get a seat in quebec. If no seat in alberta = not a national party, then no seat in quebec = not a national party.