ScottSA

If you don't understand the difference, then you don't understand this whole debate.

As opposed to the "criticizing anything other than whitebread christian society is racism" kool aid?

Mind pointing out where he said we should do it in the name of God, or because Chaves is not a Christian? I don't know if you really understand how silly you look trying to equivocate like this. Christians don't kill people these days because of God. They just don't, even if you can dig up some exception to the rule. Islam does. Islam kills each other and anyone else who gets in the way, because of Islam. I can post another body count of Islam murder in the name of religion over the last three months, if you want, and invite you to post a corresponding list of Christian murders, committed in the name of Jesus, but I promise you my list will be as a planet to your dirtclod. We all know it. Except perhaps you.

Allow me to condense your post into a manageable soundbyte. In effect you are claiming that one ought not try to select the characteristics of a potential immigrant. To be sure, you adorn it with all sorts of invective and even a few entirely conjured up imputations, but for the most part you're claiming that it's 'racist' to want to decide who comes into one's country. That's just silly Rue. You of all people should know that.

There are those who are attracted to Islam for its claims to strong morality. It's ironic that many who do are from the left side of the spectrum, opposed in every way to the same message when it comes from Christian lips, but be that as it may, Islam does find fertile ground in some quarters. I would argue, along with many others, that it's because our society has forgotten 'liberty' and adopted a twisted concept we misname "freedom." We've drifted toward hedonism, the scourge of late empires, and forgotten that liberty involves responsibility and a certain spirit of charity and stoic self-denial. As late as 40 years ago western society was firmly entrenched in that concept of responsible liberty, but decades of ridicule and id worship, not to mention the atomization of society to accomodate multiculturalism, have taken their toll. Our current concept of "freedom" verges toward nihilism and moral anarchy, each moral absolute relegated to a comparison towards some other moral absolute and each found equally valid, not by virtue of any merit, but by virtue of pragmatic "compromise." That I suppose is why we pretend, tongue in cheek, that stoneage "native healers" are in some way equal to modern doctors, even though no sane person would pick the former over the latter when the moment of truth comes. It's why we worship peace for peace's sake regardless of the terms, and why we look so hard to find equal validity between a dark 7th century Asiatic barbarism and the shining beacon of the European Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment. I can just feel the gnashing of teeth from the left, right now, demanding how I DARE call one better than the other. And that's my point. To those of you who are outraged by now and hammering on the 'report' button to complain about my "racism", you might as well stop reading, because you won't even understand what follows, much less agree with it. But yet most of us want to defend freedom against barbarism, no matter how twisted a concept it has become. But how well can we do that when we embrace specticals like this in San Francisco, allegedly attended by 400,000 people and hardly mentioned in the media? Are we supposed to hold this aloft as the "freedom" we want to preserve? It makes me sick...not that people have the "right" to do it, because that right is I believe an essential component of liberty as well, but because we celebrate this kind of thing as a sort of icon of what we consider to be "freedom" these days. Caution, pictures not for the weak bowelled. Contains nudity, and not the pretty kind Perhaps because of that media celebration...the "they're just like us" crowd...no major media outlet spent any amount of time reporting this disgusting display, and it's no wonder. Is this what our fathers died in WW II to preserve? Is what what our kids are fighting for in Afghanistan? Is this what we're fighting to preserve?

The topic is Europeans bringing their slaves here, remember? Not us taking ours there. Europe incrementally abolished slavery after it was long gone, as you may or may not know from your short Google U jaunt. The reason slavery wasn't abolished here is because it was abolished in Britain long before Canada gained autonomy. Didn't you take grade 12 history? And really, how silly can one get? Can you really make a case that Europeans are going to bring slaves here? Isn't that just silly?

What a tempest in a teapot. What a mountainous mole hill. What a...well, anyway, this kinda fell flat on its face, didn't it Dobbin?

Hey, it's better than boinking sheep in the hilands. Why when I was a young kilted whippersnapper a few generations ago just before Charlie's '45, we used to look for them hot fluffy lassie's an'...oops, did I say that out loud...?

Typical; the US is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Since they're gonna get blamed either way, they should just gas the country and walk away with the oil. Oh, and before anyone tries to report this as a "call for genocide," give your head a shake.

You can't seem to grasp the very obvious...Christians rarely kill people in the name of Christianity. When you claim they kill people in the name of "liberty", you are conceding the point. The fact that one (1) instance from almost 30 years ago stands out is because of it's infrequency. That massacre is dwarfed by any good three month period of Islamic killing in the name of Islam since, and in any event it was for political reasons. Dissemble as you will, Christian preachers simply don't make a habit of calling for the deaths of non-Christians. Hell, it's hard enough to find one who will openly criticize other religions from the pulpit.

"...well I guess it isn't china and paint..." Wow, we're really on a self-hate trip today, huh?

You're right. This is crap. It's like blaming cops because bankrobbers get shot. It's very sad and all, but tough luck. She chose to do something illegal, suffered the consequences, and died by her own actions. At the very end of the clip, they blame the smuggler, but the rest of the clip is clearly putting the onus on the US for sinningly trying to stop illegal immigration, which is refered to rather benignly throughout as "migration, and "looking for work," and "being drawn northward."

Try to concentrate for a moment. First, your article is not about the US killing people, it's about a Christian caught with his hand in a cookie jar. Second, the US does not kill people in the name of Christianity. Islam does, every day, across the globe, day in and day out. Those are the facts.

Yes I did read the article. I'm not only refering to the ironic use of "paternalism" to refer to folk's reactions to the most paternalistic religion since Moses era Judaism, but to the entire gist of the article, which was that Muslims are set upon and distrusted for some unfair reason unbeknownst to the poor scorned professor. I encourage you to read more about Islam, its history, and its intrusions into Christendom, which used to include all of North Africa, btw, and no, not through Christian conquest. I encourage you to especially concentrate on the history of Bysantium, established as a pagan Roman outpost, becoming the seat of eastern empire, and finally standing as the sole Christian bulwark against Islam until the 15th century, while Europe lay largely defenseless against it. I recommend the history of Bysantium to you because what is happening now is a 21st century replay, but instead of stone walls we have only intellect to protect us against this scourge of right-think tyranny, because this time the incursion is from within, and you and the apologist left are busy dismantling the walls in the name of "acceptance."

Excellent! Feel better now that you've tried to draw a moral equivalency between, let's see..."illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense," and several hundred murders in the name of Islam around the globe each week? Doesn't it kinda make you feel on top o' the world?

Muslims are quite good at playing the victim card. They know it resonates well with the left.

That's the best you can do? Entirely fabricate something? See, here's the double standard I'm talking about...I say something about Islam and you folks all fall over each other to throw rotten eggs, but you think nothing of trashing European society or Christianity even if it means just conjuring up ridiculous fiction. Slaves? Oh, you must mean the institution that the British government stamped out 150 years ago, that unfortunately lingers on in some Islamic nations, but hasn't been seen in western Europe since...oh, I dunno...for about 1000 years or so?

Forgive me for saying so, but most of your posts over the last few days are concerned with posts you don't like. If all we ever did was follow suit and attack the posting style in the post above, it would get pretty boring pretty fast. Why not address the issue...a headfake similar to the one in the "Islam the sneaky buggers" thread which happens to have made asses of the left...oh, wait, I see why you don't want to address it.

They have the right to live together in a ghetto if that's what they want; after all it's exactly what every other ethnic group does too. That's why floodgate "visible minority" immigration is going to kill the west. To have any sort of social strength, a society must have at least some degree of homogeniety. In 1960 we had virtually 100% homogeniety and today we have very little chance of having it for another 1000 years.

Ok, you asked for it: I could go on at length, and we both know it. You see jennie, just because a fact is unpleasant doesn't mean it's not a fact. Indian "leaders" are the only people who benefit from this Canadian government teat scam they've managed to set up. The "people" they claim to represent are the losers, robbed of prospects, hope, and a sense of worth, while being told they have to "preserve" a culture that doesn't come close to the culture they are supposed to be preserving. Burning sweetgrass and chanting around campfires in a sylvan wilderness is idyllic and cute, but when they go home to a whitey house with a whitey refrigerator and a whitey healthcare system if the get sick, and a whitey snowmobile or whitey car, or even leverage traditional whale hunts with whitey firepower, it makes a mockery of the alleged culture. A stoneage culture is not one worth preserving in anything like it's original form, which is why no one tries. And the strongmen who run things know it very well, but they also know their money ticket is to pretend, and to howl "racism" at everyone who points to the farce. Which is, I suppose, why you are doing the same thing.

Rules you apparently don't like.

This thoroughly dishonest, and your attempt to give it credence is dishonest as well. You quote 3 sources, but only one makes the claim of 22%...the "world socialist website". There is no possible way to ascertain the prison statistics for the world. How many, for instance, are in prison in Cuba? We don't know. How in God's name do they know the prison stats for China? No one else does. Do you believe everything you read or just the stuff you want to believe?

This question is a childish strawman. Rephrase it as an adult would and I'll be glad to answer.

Engrish preeze?