ScottSA

I wish you would realize that this nonsense you spout, using a writer like Eco as a source, is as politically motivated as anything that ever issued from Hitler's mouth. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't care about their history and/or their genes, and just sat back and watched things fade away. How nice. How Lennonesque. The trouble is that it doesn't happen...never has and isn't about to start now. And there's a difference between some hapless minority and a strong growing and ghettoized minority flexing its social muscles. A difference that anyone should be able to see. People will and always have rebelled, and you can namecall till the cows come home, but that won't change.

This is pure pap. I don't recall a rash of adolescent jewish suicides in Germany during the events leading up to 1938, and they hed their culture a tad more "denied" than Indians do today. Plus, they didn't have everything paid for by the state. "Intergenerational conflict is hardly confined to Korean Americans, and just because the older generation wants to hunt neighbourhood dogs for the soup pot and the kids don't, is hardly a good argument for maintaining the custom of dog soup when they come here.

They also know how to read.

I love this simplistic flippant description, right out of the Democratic Party talking points.

Geez, you seem to have a stubborn and complete intolerance of my beliefs. It's ok though, I know how much you need a avoid being thought of as a bigot, so I'll ignore your bigotry. Although you ought not put it on display quite so starkly if you don't want people to talk...

My kids have all gone or are going to a catholic School, even though I'm not Catholic. All of them know or knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and that life is more than a nihilistic buffet of "preferences" and "choices," underwritten by radical tolerance. For that I'll be eternally grateful. I recommend religious school for everyone's kids.

Ah, here's the rub. First, "medically" and "legally" are not the same thing. Legality is philosophically irrelvant, because a child didn't become not a child on the day abortion became legal, and it won't suddenly become a child on the day the law is changed back simply because of its legal status. It either is or it ain't, regardless of what the law says. Medically, you are defining it arbitrary as "able to survive outside the womb." One could profitably argue that a child is unable to survive outside the womb until it's damned near in its pre-teens, since if one were to drop an infant in the wilderness and leave it, there is a 99.99999% change it will die. We know that because infanticide used to be quite the rage as a method of birthcontrol back before they invented coathangers and back alleys. An infant has very little more ability to survive outside the womb on its own than does a one month old fetus. Both, however, will become adults if given proper care and failing a negative act of God. My use of child support was to show you the flip side of the "rights" meme. If you consider it a "right" for a woman to kill a child because she's not "ready" to spend 9 months carrying it, then it ought to be a "right" for a man to determine whether he's ready to pay for it for the next 18 - 20 years. There are two sides to this "rights" argument, even if you don't want to see them. There's nothing to answer. It's actually silly. You're in effect justifying killing your baby because I won't take care of it. It's not my job to take care of your baby, but even so, there are 100s of people looking for kids to adopt, so if a mother wants to discard her baby because she's not "ready," then there are, apparently, a whole lot of people who are.

Sort of like the way the Conservatives were truthful and pragmatic over Kyoto, while the Libs and the NDP, well, lied a lot.

I don't think it's me, little sister, who put it in the Mohawk "News." There's an awful lot of fiction swirling around them thar Caledonian hills masquerading as fact, ain't there?

Its an oral tradition health study.

What do you consider "culture?"

You can ask, but since this thread is about a peaceful demostration being broken up by police, and not about the nature of Vlaam Belang or any other party, I won't bother answering. Ask instead whether I believe if freedom of assembly, and I'll be glad to answer. What I will say is this: the allegedly "rightwing" parties you mention are outlets to the tension building in Europe. What you will find is that as this pressure builds is that the native population, in fits and starts, will begin gravitating towards them. It is evident that the EU leadership is using immigration to atomize European society by destroying nationalism and in the process indigenous culture, and unless it is stopped, things will get far worse; on both sides. But naturally you'll blame the nasty xenophobes who commit the mortal sin of wanting to keep 2000 years of their own history safe from 7th century barbarians...not some "oral history" made up on the fly by a stoneage society, but a history that drove the world for half a millenium and gave humanity the greatest social and technological leaps and bounds in history

Of course not Jennie. Shall we consider the jury still out on whether an Indian had his head sewn back on after a beheading at a residential school as well, or can we consider that fact yet?

I suspect everyone should sit back and relax until someone A ) defines "Conservative insider," and B ) determines exactly what was said.

By allowing the unelected judiciary to make them up on the fly according to the latest "rights" fad.

Excuse me? Months of bedrest for an abortion? Maybe if there are severe one in a thousand or ten thousand complications, but are you seriously trying to tell me that most abortions require "months of bedrest?" How can anyone take you seriously when you trot out extremely unlikely circumstances both as reasons for, and consequences of, abortion, and then try to paint them as the norm? We all know that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or medical issues, and that abortions almost never require more than a few days recovery time, yet these are the red herrings usually dragged across the path to excuse the vast majority that serve as birth control. It seems to me that if you want to kill a life and make it an issue of "rights", then you ought also give the man the "rights" to declare beforehand whether he wants to pay for the next 18 years. But of course we can't do that, can we? Because that wouldn't be "fair" to the child, who has all of a sudden become of overarching important in the conversation, although when we talk about abortion, the child is meaningless. I take it you see no dissonance in that position at all?

We've already gone through this with even smarter folks than you. You'll have to read back over the thread I guess and see if you can catch up. Toodles.

And rapidly becoming Momo's comedy floorshow...there's one of his stockings hanging off the rafters...oops, men dressing up in stockings is against Sharia...off with his head.

I wonder where this mosque is? Oh, look. More from the religion of peace! Yep, they'll make great Canadians. We just have to "accept!" http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...7bb&k=66020

Do tell. What is your definition of a bigot?

Well, easily solved! Just have it out! "Let's see, I can take gravol, or get an abortion. Well, I haven't had an abortion lately, and it works longer, so I guess that's it. I hope they don't mind me taking a couple hours off work. Shame about the life that won't have a chance, but hey, this is all about me, after all..."

Yes. How is that relevant? Why are you clogging the thread?

Thanks for proving my point. "Vlaams Blok (VB) has now lost control of its own extremist elements and outrageous talk..." What that means, for the lesser witted among us, is that some of its elements are shooting off at the mouth, unsanctioned by the party. Like some elements of the reeform party in canada did. What that has to do with the platform is rather beyond me. In any event it really doesn't matter what the party platform is...and I admit I'm not familiar with it; what matters is that it IS a party, duly registered and perfectly legal, and it was at a demonstration that got shut down with police brutality. It's not clear why so many people are determined to ignore the issue and ad hominem it to death.

Oh like refering to herds of wild 'circus elephants' in Kenya, because some elephants are in circuses? I get it. But what if people are completely nuetral to other races and want them to assimilate? Are they racist assimilationists too? What if they even like other races and want them to assimilate?

I see. And you feel that there's a significant philosophical difference between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden?