Michael Hardner

That's a quote of the week.

Nixon ? Really ? Why do you say so ?

Western democracy became great by establishing a new set of rules: laws based on rights, meant to allow people to pursue their own dreams. Rather than being great by having a common thread of history and culture, the West became great by offering work and less meddling in individual affairs. Official multiculturalism provides a framework for races to engage with each other, but ultimately the cultures will melt together as Eyeball has pointed out. Multiculturalism doesn`t, IMO, invade all of our lives on a daily basis: we must still work together and engage with each other.

I think eyeball was just shrugging at the inevitability of it all, but maybe he can respond. I don`t feel racial pride, I don`t think, nor do I feel shame. I do hope for the continuance of the civilization, and the human race though.

So you provide evidence after 2 years, and my accusations are now baseless ? Nevertheless, thanks for providing some links.

Right. I retract that but it doesn`t change things much if we replace religion with `non-brown people` as eyeball asserted. Sounds like a good idea to me. It`s a mutation to imagine that we should worship the race (or religion - my assertion) of the people who established the United States, rather than marveling at the success of their ideas and their vision.

Our past is not just a museum of old faces, and the races and religions of our grandparents. They fought for an ideal that makes Canada a place to come to. How are we destroying the heritage that allowed people to immigrate ?

They very much mattered. They were builders and practitioners of a philosophy. They did not say `we are building this for the future people of our religion that will inherit it`.

I an not a moderator here. Ok, those posts were from 2008. That must be some show. So, religions aren`t allowed to make Charter Complaints ? Again, we have been through this before. All religions have a political aspect. You fail once again to show why the religion that you happen to be targeting is different than the others. So what happen to your assertion that they were insulted ? Now you add `personally victimized` which is already a change in the meaning by a degree. This is how you move the goalposts, as we have seen in the past. You start out with hyperbole, then gradually move the goalposts until you leave the thread for your 2 year dinner-and-a-show. Any argument worth making can be made without a video. No, I am not the moderator. I don`t know where you get that from. So it`s a simple fact that if Steyn had lost the case it would be illegal to insult Islam in Canada ? Simply ridiculous.

In other words, you can't provide evidence. We've covered this in the past, Jerry. You continue to post individual examples, and then cite this as an 'example' with no proof as to the cause. Please give us a break from your hysterical style and go post elsewhere. I get good arguments from Argus that cover your side of the spectrum. Your style of internet posting is so 1996.

Why should I stay on topic when you will just jump to a new one whenever you're challenged into a corner ? Want another example ? A hysterical post from you: When asked to defend this piece of hysteria there's no response as usual. link

JS does behaving in trolling in that he comes on here and makes incorrect statements, and when challenged he doesn't respond. The most famous example in my mind was when he talked about the prevalence of university degrees among truck drivers in India. Of course, he had no source for his assertion. If the assertion is that those who oppose him don't use logic in their thinking, how does one rationalize his pattern of posting ? JS just posts out of emotionality, whatever that may be.

The fact that you have to quote Al Gore shows that your post is just a rehash of drive-bys. We already have a long and well-discussed thread or two on Global Warming. Keep It Simple and Pliny are representing your side of the argument more rationally than you, I would say. I have learned a few things from them. Why don't you just close up this thread and go read that one. This doesn't add anything to the debate at all. Typical snippet of unneeded commentary:

Waldo.... no. I'm not surprised that I don't remember it, though.

And yet it's still run by Muslims. How do you explain that, given that they are part of that 'political project' ? (Your words)

Jerry - these are questions that we've already discussed prior to your absence from the board. I certainly don't want to recap the discussion yet again, only to have you leave for awhile then return with the same points from the past. You're back to your old habits - misrepresenting things. As I remember, when these are pointed out to you, you never retract your statements or apologize, but simply move on to another accusation. From the National Post article, it wasn't about being insulted but... This is as close as I come to criticizing a religion on this thread: You on the other hand make a blanked statement that Islam is a political project. More hyperbole and overstating the case from you. Your continued baseless attacks on Islam have passed the line. The fact that you refuse to amend your many mistakes and plow forward without any regards to inaccuracies tells me that you come here with an agenda to deceive and slander. I have given you more than enough chance to debate these things fairly, but you continue to come back and repeat the same bad practices that you've always used.

This civilization was built by ideas, not by races or religious beliefs.

Thanks for that. So WG 1 had a count of 7% of references not coming from peer-reviewed literature ? That could be terrible, or it could be fine. The report is supposed to have its findings based on peer-reviewed literature, so what were the other references for ? Can they refer to non-peer reviewed items if they're not part of the basis for the case ? Is there some kind of feedback process to the IPCC report ? It came out 3 years ago so what exactly is this webpage ? As for this web page, here's what the 'about' page says about it: http://noconsensus.org/about.php

This article doesn't seem to break down peer reviews by Working Groups. This is an issue because there is more criticism of working group 3 than 1 for example. I even heard a WG1 scientist criticizing WG3.

I don't think that's exactly what she did - after all she did say that she prefers Canada.

Are you saying that the Muslims should feel guilt for now their ancestors treated the Europeans at that time ?

Guilt is two things: it an emotion, and it is felt by individuals and it is a measure of culpability. As with most things human, there is the emotional/poetic axis and the logical/rational axis upon which things are considered. Both considerations are valid, though. Certainly there are emotional impressions of our society felt by the right as well - such as 'pride'.

You gotta like a man who can PRIORITIZE.

Billy Wilder has some classic movies, and a few lost classics too. Classics: Sunset Boulevard The Lost Weekend Some Like It Hot The Apartment Double Indemnity Lost Classics: 1-2-3 The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes Five Graves to Cairo