Peter F

There is no law in this country requireming folks to not wear burka's. That is to say, if you want to wear a burka help yourself to it.

and you don't have to worry about me getting one of those scholarships either. So blow it out ur arse. For Gabriel; Here is an example of glorification of the military.

Actually, I agree with the prof's contention that there is far to much glorification of the military in our country. However I also beleive education should be freely available to all. In our world, unfortunately, higher education costs money. Too bad so sad etc. So the more scholarships the better. Anything to ease the financial burden of education is okay with me and I don't give a damn where the funding comes from. I think they are mistaken to use a damned decent reason to make thier classes more difficult to access due to what happened to those potential students parents/parent. The CAW, also offers scholarships and I am sure there is more than one prof out there who could cook up a reason why that sort of scholarship should not be available.

Which ethnic group is oversensitive? Do you mean a claim from anyone deemed (by who-knows?) to be part of the oversensitive group would have any claim submitted held to a higher scrutiny than non-overly sensitive groups? I imagine there would have to be some listing somewhere for which groups are to be considered oversensitive. Perhaps reviewed from time to time by the sensitivity review board... White males can certainly file claims with the hrc on grounds of discrimination. Anyone can make such claims.

Perhaps you should vote for folks who DO represent your political concerns. Say DUHHHH real slow

Ummm...they were elected?

For Children to see? You're sick!!

Well it should be easy to find the posts that I have made to lead you to this conclusion. If you cannot find such posts then you are a liar. Bullshit! It is not I who buys the racial grouping thing; That is you - not me. You are the one who judges Brown folks on behalf of White folks. It is you who equates the misbehaviour of a brown person as a reason White folks need to protect ourselves from Brown Folks. I have certainly criticized such racist talk. I have consistently held the position that the actions of an individual are the actions of the individual and not the actions of the individuals race. Of course you see that as making 'excuses' for the race your trying to tie the misbehaviour to. So, again, you are lying. Bullshit! Again I do not now, nor ever have, hold your racial-grouping beliefs. It is you that holds race determines behaviour/misbehavior. Not I. The entire sentence is a concoction of yours. You made it up. There is no basis of fact to it. You are lying. Bullshit! You do not ignore skin pigmentation at all. See Visible Minority's thread and your panic over the threat to this country's whiteness. You are lying. Very.

Hey! you defined the terms: As you say you have left absolutely no room for argument. Yet you expect an argument.

Re the youtube entry above "Ban the koran? Geert Wilders speaks out on his-" And here the Bigotry is revealed. Muslims, you see, will lie to you. Anything good a muslim says or does cannot be trusted. Their good words and deeds are bullshit. Don't get him wrong! He's not saying that all muslims are liars - but when they become prominent they will change their tune. No, Geert, I understand. You're not saying Muslims are liars (because that would after all be rediculous) you're only saying that muslims are lying. There is nothing a muslim can do. No matter how peacefull they are; no matter how much they condemn violence; no matter what they write, do, or say; or for how long they do such: They are being decietful. Steyn made the same bullshit argument with his even peacefull law-abiding non-violent muslims 'secretly' support terrorism. Muslims are bad folk even if they appear good folk. Thier actions mean nothing. To be a muslim to be bad.

Argus did claim that it was the generalness of Muslims having brown skin (amongst other things) as the reason I would accept them as neighbours. The unwritten implication of his statement is that if it wasn't for Muslims generally having brown skin, I would not accept them as my neighbours. Which is to say that I am in fact a racist in that browness (generally speaking) is a determining factor in how I treat people. If they have browness (generally speaking)then I am nice to them. If they have no browness (generally speaking) then I am not nice to them. IE: I hate white folks. But as usual, he's too much of a chicken-shit to actually say that. So, in typical bigot fashion, he simply implies it.

What are you going on about here? Are you suggesting I should be able to say who can or cannot move into my neighbourhood? That I should actually have the power to say who can or cannot buy the lot of land adjacent to mine? Or rent the apartment across the hall? We do not get to select our neighbours. We get to select to move out, of course, but we don't select who moves in. And again, I do not get that selection. But...If I did I would pray to god above for you to place a massively huge sum of money, for you would lose it. Exactly...except for the skin colour part...and also except for the religous part. Oh, yeah; and the social views part...and the numbers.

yah. "Go to Gaysgonewild.com to view"

I can imagine that scene..."Hey everybody! Let's all go to Toronto and film sex-acts at the Gay Pride parade! Get your camera's! C'mon!"

Thats very clever.

The proposed bill is about adding seats in the House of Commons, not the senate.

So she assaulted Mr.Layton.

I disagree entirely. I see no reason for morality exams of potential immigrants. They will be subject to the law when they get here (and I would hope the immigration authorities do in fact let immigrants know the basics of what the law is). Lots of non-immigrant people have little intention of interacting with wider society. We got lots of Italian Cultural centers and china-towns. Its perfectly alright for us non-immigrants to restict our social lives to whatever we are comfortable with. I see no reason to require anything different from immigrants.

This is where you light up your bigotry. "...especially Islamic counties" gives it away - not that its any surprise to anyone. See - if Harper said " we don't need the cheapworkforce right now" that wouldn't be bigotry. It would be a statement of government policy regardidng immigration levels. Any restrictions would apply to all wannabe immigrants nomatter where they came from or what thier religious beliefs were. The charge of bigotry would be very difficult to make stick. ...but if Harper should tack "especially from islamic countries" onto the statement then bigotry sticks pretty easily.

So if somone put an arm in your face you would push it away But if someone pushed your arm out of the way - thats assault but if you're the one pushing an arm out of the way thats ok then.

Certainly. But then thats the nature of grass roots democracy. If the tea partiers see the republican party as thier preferred vehicle of getting the changes they want then the republican party will be subject to thier pressure. This is not unusual or strange. The Christian Right did the same in the early 80's. Either they succeed or meet too much resistance and fail. Its called politics and is the proper way of seeking political goals. There's nothing wrong here - or England apparently.

do you say that to the ones that dont want to bomb you or only the ones that do?

me too

Well, if you believe radical islamists are taking over certain political parties riding associations (which, by the way, is entirely normal in a democratic land, not to mention the preferred method of attaining political goals) then the answer is simple: Don't vote for them.

Liar.