Michael Hardner

I think MikeDavid needs to be quarantined until he provides evidence for his claims.

MikeDavid has consistently ignored requests that he back up the information that he's posting. I think we should stop responding to his arguments until he does so.

Immigrants have to pass a test in one of our official languages to get citizenship. That is patently wrong. I learned a foreign language from very little foundation after only a few months. Putting proven in brackets might convince a simpleton, but it doesn't convince us. Immigrants often have English as a second language, and ESL classes are full of people who are taking night courses to learn it. In the Phillipines, they teach basic school courses in English. You were his last choice ? Ford pulled out of your company for 'other reasons' ? New immigrants aren't suited for every job, but from your stated record, neither are you. Where do you live ? A significant percentage of every workplace I've been in for the last ten years has been immigrant and/or non white. How am I supposed to differentiate when you say (fact) and when you say (anecdotal) ? I don't accept this evidence from you. Again, a slew of information from you that is not sourced. That means you have simply quoted some numbers, but not told us where. You need to learn the basics of debate, perhaps from an immigrant. 100 % of Michael Hardners reject your unsubstantiated facts. (fact)

Higgy, What does 'accepting responsibility' mean, in real terms ? We can accept that the nations of our ancestors fought, vanquished and exploited... and won. What does it mean for us today ? Wouldn't the other side have acted similarly at that time ?

Kengs, The other question is why the homogeneity of a region should be a determinant in deciding whether they fit FPTP. Again - does anybody have examples other than these four countries listed ?

That's it ? I was under the impression that there were more. Are there ?

I think Wilbur was being ironic here. To add to what Jennie says: BBC News According to many sources, over 50% of Torontonians were born outside Canada. Toronto is the economic engine of Canada. People work hard here, and you constantly have to retrain to stay employable. As a former recruiter, I have witnessed the typical cycle that an IT worker from, say, Indian will go through in order to get a good job in Canada. They will go from a top management position at, say, Microsoft India to working at a call centre in Toronto at nights while taking classes during the day. It can take five years for such talented people to finally regain their former level of employment. There are a lot of foreign born people working in IT because it is one of the few professional jobs that do not have systemic barriers to entry, unlike law, and medicine. The other field that has a lot of immigrants is business, especially small business. The entrepreneurial spirit of the immigrant in Canada has a long tradition, and it reinvigorates our economy. I had a similar argument with someone on ScottSA's board once, wherein my opponent was trumpeting an Alberta company as being an example of Western Canadian entrepreneurship. It took only a few minutes of Google research for me to discover for him that the company was started by a woman from Hong Kong.

How so ? The 'White Heritage Party', say, could frame its policies around promoting the 'white race'. There would be nothing to stop it, legally speaking.

MikeDavid - somebody posted stats from stats Canada. If you have anything REAL to add other than anecdotal evidence then post it now. Immigrants are adding to the economy - producing, buying goods, and investing in Canada. Provide some counter evidence that amounts to anything better then pure rhetoric.

No. Any one will do.

MikeDavid and Argus... please provide proof of your statements.

Kengs, You can't "prove" what will happen, it's pure conjecture. I maintain that my predictions, though, are more accurate than your predictions that Ontario will transform into Belgium. But not elected by voters.... sounds pretty undemocratic to me... But they *were* elected by their local constituents. I could easily see all major parties doing this. Then what ? Say what you like about Mike Harris, but he made a mark upon the province, and he was re-elected. I voted against him, and I even marched in protest against him several times however I think that the mechanics of democracy in this country demand that someone with a vision of how things should be done gets a turn at the helm. You will never again have a Harris, or a Trudeau, if you force every leader to play cards with the other party leaders all of the time. You are paving the way for the Ontario Nazi party, or its equivalent, to gain a platform.

Morris, That means that political wonk heads like MapleLeafWebbers are all excited, but the general unwashed populace will still be unmoved. Wasn't the purpose of this thing to get people all excited about voting again ? Looks like MMP fails in that department as well. Let's see... CONS - Untouchable appointed MPPs, not democratically elected - Perpetual minority governments, and the attendant politics that such arrangements bring - More representatives, more complication for a population that doesn't even understand the existing system - A louder voice for fringe parties that we don't need to near from - Small parties that do need a voice - i.e. The Greens - will have a seat in the legislature, but will still not be guaranteed to be included in debates, or press coverage - Existing problems with our democratic system will remain unaffected by this silly fix - Centre-left dominance of politics forever will lead to a right wing backlash PROS - Mathematical perfection, I.E. no 'wasted votes', which seems to mean that whoever loses the election gets to send MPPs anyway.

Again, Kengs... aside from the 'wasted votes' issue, and other matters mathematical, what are we missing here ? If one wants to go through every electoral system with a microscope, you'll be left only with direct democracy as the 'pure' system. If you're not for direct democracy, then your system can only be slightly less flawed than mine.

Thanks for the statistics, AW. Can somebody back up the claims about welfare next ?

We're also sorry that the emperor of China banned exploration because he was jealous of the gains made by entrepreneurs, thus falling behind Europe in trade.

Jefferiah, and Kengs, It seems to me that your complaint is with the justice system in general. Suits or complaints have to be pursued once filed, that is the process. Conrad Black was, back in the day, accused of causing 'libel chill' when he subpoenaed every person who was associated with a writer, who was working on an unauthorized biography. Your complaint is with the general process, and doesn't have anything to do with human rights complaints in particular.

With regards to your case, it hasn't even been ruled on yet from what I can see.

Geoffrey, This is a forum, wherein we discuss thoughts and ideas. There wouldn't be much point in a forum where we continually challenged each other for questioning someone else's deeply held beliefs.

Jeff, I don't think it is criminal to say that, at least in Canada.

I would add: Racist ideology can easily be defeated in an open debate. If you refuse to debate these ideas, and instead attempt an end-run around them by marginalizing and shaming those who espouse them, you will leave an element of doubt in the minds of those who are swayed by their arguments.

Oh, Scott has read plenty of books, is very intelligent, and a fine debater. However, like many smart dogmatics on these forums, he either chooses to ignore the contradictions in his own philosophy, or he just refuses to acknowledge them on these pages. The most blatant of these contradictions, which took me several years to discover, occurs in those who absolutely despise emotional arguments and emotionality in general. ( I think Scott would admit that he fits the bill here. ) Such people hold a Spock-like devotion to 'logic'. Yet, any logical person would find at least a few contradictions in those patently stupid bodies of thought that are 'party platforms'. And this never seems to happen. The reason for this gap is that the dogmatic person's philosophies are not based on reason, but on emotion. In this case, it is the subject's absolute hatred for the hippie bogeyman. The best you can hope to do with such people is to get a non-response. That indicates that they have given up the fight. And the best way to debate with Scott is to point out the lack of reason and the emotionality in his arguments when you catch it. Best of luck, I'm six years ahead of you and I don't think I've seen a point conceded even once. Lately, I've been accused of being a mushy middle-of-the-road type. Hmmmmm.

It has been explained to you countless times - the reason why such trolling gives no meaningful information. The last time I explained this to you (on your own forum), I countered your example by going to Google News and searching for 'vagrancy' or some such word. The results came back as 100% white males. I explained that even my little experiment, which barely tells us anything at all, is a better method than your method of trolling for crimes committed by Muslims, and posting them as proof of anything. I know you're smart, so the problem is not that you're can't pick up my point. The fact is that you are ignoring the truth, i.e. you are purposely behaving as an ignoramus.

Hey there Scott, You've never accused me of trolling before, but then again I've never had the luxury of posting comments from your own forum onto a respectable one such as MapleLeaf, so I'm not surprised that you don't have a response. As for this: So what ? Your discussion with Peter F ended with your call for proof of your 'whining'. ( His words. ) I'll accept 'so what?' as your first ever concession of a point another poster has made. Thanks,

Scott, I notice now that you're in favour of deporting all Muslims from Canada. Some might call this a case of you overplaying the 9/11 victim card. I would be one of those some. It would be unusual for a masterly scholar like yourself to over react in this way, if it were not for your long record of over reactions on your own forum. Carry on, if only for our amusement.