ScottSA

After giving Gore the Nobel prize for lying a lot, Norway is now going to slaughter its own business community in a last spasm of retribution at "patriarchy" from the dying credo of haginism. Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women. Link

Are you creating a "fairness issue" when you invite freinds to your house and deny entry to people you don't know?

You seem to be missing the point. Notwithstanding the fact that "minor police scuffles" in Belgium involved the police scuffling and the protestors crying out in pain, that is not the issue. The issue is Canada's right to deny entry to someone after the fact. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is well within it's rights to deny entry to Vlaam Belang members. South Africa is well within its rights to deny entry to KKK members. Canada is well within its rights to deny entry to pink clad menopausal battleaxes.

Hardly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2191301,00.html Here's one

Even if you don't agree with all or part, you must admit that this rhetorical prose is somewhat more stimulating than the bumper sticker chants and slogans of the dressup funny crowd. “The time has comeâ€, the Walrus said, “to talk of many thing.†So, with apologies to Lewis Carroll and to the Bard, I ask, “Friends, Britons, countrymen, lend me your ears and consider this: You are under attack; your enemies are both within and without and their malignant intent is to take either your mind or your life.†Then I ask you to look around your homeland and decide for yourself whether the statement above is true or false. If it is false, or if this is the future you want, or are prepared to tolerate, do nothing. But if there are those of you who see the truth of it, and choose to remain free men and women, then you must stand up and be counted, for time is running out. Perhaps, if enough of us do, we may find that we are not as few as our voices in the wilderness would make it appear, but that our lack of cohesion, of organisation, of mutual support merely substantiates the old axiom ‘divide and conquer’... Read the rest

What are you talking about? You mean people will shoot at us? I think they're alreay doing that. How do you propose to deal with opium production in Afghanistan? I mean realistically, not by "teaching" them how to grow rutabagas instead.

My goodness, it's wonderful to see the left out in full puffed out defence of the inherent right of protest in a democracy. It's a shame the same folks took the other side of the issue when the protest in Belgium took place. And the Flemish nationalists didn't even chain themselves to things. How about that? The two are different issues of course. That one concerned police brutality begun by the police against middle aged men standing quietly, and this one involves fury-breathing menopausal women denied entry to Canada, but hey, lets pave over the differences; protest is a right, right? As Argus pointed out, this has nothing to do with any of that anyway. There is no inherent "right" to come to Canada; something the pro-immigration crowd seems not to understand. Why would we want to allow a troublemaker to come here? If her mission was to agitate for Canada to adopt "American style medicare," would her unsullied right to advance upon the Canadian establishment in the name of democracy still be worth flinging oneself down in front of the tanks? Somehow I suspect not. Canada doesn't want her here. Canada has the right not to want her here. Canada has the procedural mechanism to deny her entry, and Canada has legal justification to deny her entry, even if it really doesn't need it.

You are entirely confused as to the content of what you posted, and continue to be confused as to what "racism" means. You are even misusing the concept of "race." How do you expect to have your opinions of racism taken seriously if you don't even know what race means? Is attacking Christianity "racism?" If not, why not, and if so, why?

In other words admit there's a problem, and you claim to know this won't work, but are not willing to commit to a solution. I already have committed to a solution, by my support of this policy, so the onus isn't on me to present another. That would be silly.

Making the claim on behalf of Mohammed is an insulting but true statement. Changing 'Mohammed' to 'Christ' would make it an insulting and untrue statement. One might find it "insulting" to call Dahlmer a cannibal, and might test that hypothesis by changing 'Dahlmer' to 'Mother Teresa,' and ascertain through the test that it is indeed insulting in both cases; but any sane knowledgeable individual would know that even though it is insulting in both cases, in only one case is it without merit.

I think you are confusing concepts here. Civil society is founded on two things: Law and coercion. Law without a means of coercion is so much fluttering of lips and scratching of pens; and coercion without law is not civil society; it is arbitrary tyranny. There are other, softer aspects to civil society, like implicit legitimacy of the law and the coercive entity, but in essence the two will do to maintain a civil society with or without the other aspects. What you are confusing here is a domestic civil society with the international state of affairs, which does not comprise nor resemble in any way a civil society. Since it's based on the Westphalian system; that is, a series of independent self-interested sovereign states within an anarchic system, the present international system is in every way incapable of creating a "global" society. That's why there is no "law" in the accepted sense of domestic law. There are principles, interpreted on a case by case basis by the only body with the perceived legitimacy to examine each case (the UNSC), but there is no real corpus of universally recognized law. If citizen A clacks citizen B over the head and runs off with citizen B's purse, the police will arrest A, because purse-snatching is illegal regardless of whatever justification A can come up with to excuse the purse-snatching. In the international arena, on the other hand, a state can often get away with purse-snatching, depending on the importance of the purse or the snatchee to the "Judges." Iraq was "arrested" for Kuwait because the purse was important, but no one bothered to arrest Syria for Lebanon, because the purse was a cheap one and the snatchee wasn't strategically important, or at least not important enough to call the police. And that's the other, and even more major difference: there is no police force, nor can there ever be under the Westphalian system, whether India, Brazil, or Timbuktu are admitted. There is now, and only ever will be a posse system. Even if the UNSC gets together and agrees that A is guilty, it makes no difference whatsoever unless someone or a collection of someones are willing to nab the criminal. The coercion available to the non-law of the international system is completely at the whim of the component states.

I guess I'll worry about it when it happens, but i'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with the government sending out greeting cards.

Yes, I realize that sending out greeting cards is a precursor to genocide, and I don't mean to minimize the very real danger of paper cuts, and possible disease transmission, but give me a break.

They haven't even started this yet and you're calling it a failure? What exactly is the "something else" you suggest? It's easy to be a critic, but what's your solution?

Admit it...there's no moral difference between sending out greeting cards and committing genocide.

I love it!

So really all you're doing is mocking a belief, rather than showing how it's in some way harmful?

Great article in its analysis of the historical and current situation, but it's premised on the implicit notion that the UN or some variation of it is the needed "authority," and that is a very bad thing in the opinions of many and not, as suggested, confined to the opinion of Bush. It also ignores the fact that power vacuums are filled by war 9 times out of 10.

I suspect many Christians would argue that there's a distinction between "rapture" as you have portrayed it, and the "second coming." The first is an elaboration on the second, and I'm quite sure that if pressed on the issue, the Mennonites wouldn't insist that one day all good people will *poof* disappear and go to heaven, leaving bad people to do whatever bad people do. Were I you, I would read Thomas Merton and similar authors and leave cartoon portrayals of Christianity to...well, to the fringe sects.

May I suggest something? When two people meet on the street, they see each other, take each other's measure, and commence a conversation on the basis of a host of olfactory and visual information mutually obtained by physical proximity. On the internet there is no such opportunity. Your words are you. If they are sloppy and unkempt they devalue your opinion to the same extent that showing up on the street half dressed and stinking of sweat and beer would devalue an opinion expressed to someone else in the physical universe. If you don't even take the time to capitalize your sentences and, if you're not a good speller, run a quick spellcheck on words you're not sure about, that is reflective of the image you portray on the web. If people point and laugh it's not because they're cruel, but because you're unshaven and your socks don't match.

So these Christians are proactively killing sinners in the name of God all over the world?

Seems to me there are two issues here: 1 What the privacy act says, and 2 Our personal opinions of what is right. Those distinctions should probably be made, since much of this thread seems to equate one's personal feelings with the law, by virtue of "ought."

I'm not calling you anti-semetic. I'm not calling your post anti-semetic. I'm suggesting that you framed your title in terms calculated to raise an alarm, much as my title "Islam, the sneaker buggers" was calculated to raise an alarm. The difference is that I am quite willing to say I'm alarmed about Islam and quite ready to insult it even without immediate provocation, and you're not willing to stand behind your blatantly obvious innuendo against the Conservatives. Again, I don't want to rehash the thread here, but if your only concern was the privacy act, why didn't you create a title that said that?

The weather may or may not be changing, but that's not what "the debate" is about. In actuality, if Global Warming is indeed taking place, it's the best thing that could ever happen to Canada. If you believe it's taking place, though, buy up Canadian real estate as fast as you can...it's about to skyrocket.