ScottSA

I was known as a dead eye in the paper clip wars of 7th grade English class. I once shot the pencil right out of Martha Laird's hands while she was doing homework, and she was so impressed that she told her freinds she wanted to go steady with me. Unfortunately I didn't find out until she had lowered her sights and moved on to lesser skilled members of the militia. But I digress. I see that the campaigns of old have evolved into hot firefights and town invasions, presumably followed but rapine and slaughter. Zero tolerance seems to be working well.

Dare I ask for a link for this utter and complete nonsense?

This makes no sense at all.

Bahrain is also a society, regardless of how it's governed. If democracies are the only legitimate political bodies in your mind, then clearly most of the world deserves to be invaded and set right, or at the very least disallowed from the UN. I see you're headed for another of those conceptual knots you like to tie yourself up in Mikey.

I don't recall a referendum on immigration. Help me out here. And please don't resort to "vote on it at election time," since one votes for a basket of issues, not merely one.

So what's your beef?

Exactly.

So there is money available then? There seems to be some confusion...either there is or there ain't, right?

I hate to break the news to you, but it was the Democrats who fought hardest and longest against the civil rights movement. Go look it up. It only takes about ten minutes for leftwingers to revise history inside out and backwards.

That's nonsensical. If it's in the public domain its freely available. If someone doesn't want to get a Happy Sheep Shearing card or whatever, and it's important enough to make a fuss over, then they can probably call and ask to have themselves removed. Your claims about what political parties "should" do and not do may be wonderful opinions, but they are not reflective of the law, which is what you're trying to link them to. It is not unlawful to collect information in the public domain. You don't need permission to open the phone book, or to sort through publications in the public domain to compile information. Companies do it as a matter of course.

My point is, as you must surely know, that this information came from the public domain and as such cannot possibly be a violation of the privacy act. You know it as well and are simply trying to whip up another lynch mob.

Great imagery!

If I'm not mistaken, the privacy act does not preclude information found in the public domain. To date I have never yet been arrested for using the phone book. But really Dobbin, this is a pretty transparent "soldiers in the streets" thread, don't you think? I mean really; "Conservatives keeping lists of jews?" Could you possibly make it sound more sinister? To my knowledge, Hitler didn't keep track of the Jews in order to send greeting cards, and I don't think Harper is planning to make people wear yellow stars, do you?

Oh I think we all know the intent is not to fail, but to change the practice to accomodate Islam. It's happening all over Europe and North America every day. A little nibble here, a little nibble there, a surge here, a backstep there. And all the while a certain group of fools sit back in self-satisfaction making fun of the folks who can see what's coming. Such is the slippery slope, and within the context of multicult it can't be stopped. Both the official policies of multicult and the mindset of multicult have to be changed so that actions like this, across the board, are seen to be as truly ridiculous as they are. It bothers me that so many people think that the west has no right to keep its culture, and is in fact beholden to change it to reflect the wants of every barbarian who comes along with a beef.

The difference is that while I don't know the composition of Higgly's head, he presumably DOES know the definition of "racist," which is as I understand it someone who believes in the superiority of one race over another; a concept I have variously called "silly," "foolish," and "ridiculous." So in a sense you're right - whereas I don't know if I'm correct in calling Higgly a "poopoohead", he does know he's wrong in calling me a racist. Not that I mind being called a racist or anything, but thanks for clarifying that.

That's soooo archetypically Canadian. Anything outside the comfort zone of polite society is to be avoided at all costs. When a race-based thuggocracy is milking the Canadian government dry and openly flaunting the law while their "people" descend into pan-drunkeness and drug use, you'd prefer we behave with tea cozy politeness, and discuss instead the supposed evils our great great grandfathers did to their great great grandfathers, as if that has the slightest relevance to Caledonia. I can just see someone with this mindset in a cottage on the French side of the Ardennes, politely greeting the blitzkreig: "excuse me Mr. Guderian, but would you mind veering your very pretty Panzers a bit to the left to avoid my flowerbeds? I know you're angry, and you have good reason to be I'm sure, but you're scaring the birds. Not that you mean to of course..." BTW, where exactly is Greg's warning not to criticize the posts? I must have missed it.

Calling a global religion a "tribe" is racism too, but I'll try not to be offended. However, the thread in question concerns several sneaky bugger conspirators, not a "tribe."

Ok, so you've modified your position of uncompromising purism "on principle" to an admission that "on the whole" you agree with the Liberal Party and you can live with such differences as you may have with it. Great. But then you launch into a thinly veiled criticism of me for compromising in exactly the same way with the Cons. I can live with the disagreements I have with the Cons, just as you can live with your disagreements with the Liberals. If I am selling out my prinicples, then you are selling out yours too? Right? If I am simply compromising, then so are you. Right? So tell me again why I should have to start my own party, or run as an independent, on principle, while you shouldn't have to?

I think I see the problem here...it's one of definition. I think the GP is green because they use the colour 'green' as an analogy for the environment; not because they are trying to evoke little green men from mars with tin foil hats. Are you sure you're in the right green party? BTW, what's the GP's stance on the culprits of 911?

If the people liable to kill themselves every time the government rules against them were to be encouraged to do just that, the gene pool would be quite a bit better served. I fail to see what all the discussion is about, frankly. Some guy killed himself. If he didn't do it over this thing, he would have done it over something else. Very sad, but what does it have to do with zoning laws?

Running on one's own personal principles in a representative democracy may matter most, but it's a Phyrric victory at best, which is why you don't run as an independent in every election. If principles were the Holy Grail of politics, you would, right? It's pointless, and whatever "principle" you are trying to illustrate has 15 seconds of fame and then disappears. I may want to change canada in any number of ways, but if I go around town pasting manifestos to telephone poles, the only effect it's going to have is having city workers take them down and quite possibly raise my taxes to pay for it. Running as an independent has about the same effect. Your second para seems to contradict the first. In the first you claim that 'principle' is the overriding factor, and in the second that you vote Liberal in spite of Liberal principles which may not be in accord with your own. By your rationale in the first para, you should always and everywhere run as an independent, given that Liberal principles will not always reflect yours, and according to the second, you should sometimes run as an independent and the rest of the time "vote to change" policies you don't like, yet vote for the Liberals in spite of the lack of change (I assume that the Liberal party doesn't always adopt the changes you vote for). There's some real dissonance here. It's almost as if you once ran as an independent on 'principle,' and now are resting on those laurels while negotiating those same principles.

That's why she says Higgy hasn't won the war, I suspect. Nothing lost about that. I personally don't think anyone should be gagged for anything, including calling people racist, since its such a meaningless phrase. It carries about as much intellectual weight as calling someone a poopoohead, but there's the rub; If I can be called a racist, I ought to be able to call Higgy a poopoohead back, but everytime I do, s/he tattles. So it seems the solution is one of two things: either allow people to call other people names, or disallow namecalling entirely, which is what Greg did. Now I can't call Higgly a poopoohead and Higgly can't call me a racist. Apparently some folks are upset because now the playing field is level instead of weighted in their favour.

I see BDS is still in full gear.

Because running and winning are too different things. When running as an unknown independent, they are virtually mutually exclusive things, resulting in nothing more than a throwaway vote, lost time, and tons of money. Tell me, does the Liberal Party represent your views to exactitude with each and every policy? Do your views change in lockstep to the periodic changes in their policy?