ScottSA

Yes, I've read freedom at midnight. I've also read Jim Corbett, Nehru, all about the Indian mutiny, and guess what else? I lived in New Delhi for 7 years. But do please educate me about it in case I missed some of your expertise on India.

Probably, but I really don't care if you call me racist or not. In fact if "racist" means I recognize the difference between races, why, then yes I am racist. If "racist" describes any one or some combination of my attitudes, including my celebration of common sense, then I'm not only racist, but proudly racist. The age of sending people backpedalling by using that word against them is over. Get used to it.

Yes, it would, wouldn't it? Kinda like paying child support affects men's "choices." But you know what? There's more to life than satisfying one's id, as surprising as that may seem.

Good grief little cheerleader, why do you think all of north africa and large parts of the middle east were once Christian and are no longer? Why do you think there are so few Jews in those lands now? You want specific pogroms? Fine...here are some that we know about, but a lot of them just got disappeared behind closed curtains, as it were: 1033 – 6,000 Jews killed in Fez by Muslim mobs 1106 – Ali ibn Yusuf ibn Tashifin founds Marrakesh, decrees death penalty for local Jews even as his military leader and physician are Jewish. 1107 – Almoravide ruler Yusuf ibn Tashifin orders Jews to convert or be expelled from Morocco. 1148 – Almohadin become rulers of Morocco, offer Christians and Jews the choice of conversion or expulsion. Is that enough yet? We're not even out of the 12th century and I left out 4 centuries before that. I can present gobs more if you'd like, but all you need to do, little cheerleader, is ask yourself what happened to North Africa and the middle east. They used to be christian and Jewish before the coming of the barbarians. Stop soaking up PC revisionism and start looking into things a bit.

No, I think wwe should start blaming the people who created the mess instead. I think we should also laugh at people who turn history upside down in spasms of self hatred. Har har.

We should increase Muslim immigration immediately, in order to experience more glorious multiculturalism. This happens weekly in India, and we need more of it here...who wants to live in "bland white bread" Canada when we can have thrills and excitement instead? Two police posts were set on fire by thousands of agitated residents and students around Jamia Milia Islamia University on Saturday evening. The angry mob first set Jamia police post on fire and later targetted Sahinbagh police post in Sarita Vihar. About 40 people, including policemen, were injured in the violence... ...Around two dozen police officers were injured in which four were reported to be critical. The incident happened after local residents in the area resisted police’s efforts to remove a patri market. In course of the encroachment removal drive, the Koran was reportedly dropped by a policeman, leading to tension. A local leader reportedly slapped a police officer. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi_m...how/2394270.cms

What historical fact might that be, little cheerleader?

Stop trolling Mikey. You surely must have something better to do?

Everybody has choices and always did. It's just that somewhere along the line the feminist movement destroyed the sense of obligation that has to go with all the "choices."

Nope. You've decontextualized it of course, as is your wont, but hey, I said it. So what?

I don't think either Jews or Muslims should be coddled. Nor, for that matter, should Catholics be fed fish on Friday. If their religion was so important to them they wouldn't be there in the first place. Except Muslims of course, whose religion tells them to do all manner of nasty things. But there's a distinction...I think Jews should be here in Canada; I don't think Muslims should be. I'd be quite happy to deport the lot of them.

The last resort of stupid people is to call smart people stupid.

I can't understand the legs on the myth that we 'need' immigration. Why? The conomic argument is specious at best and dishonest at worst, and in any event the only people that use it anymore are the folks who formulated their arguments a decade ago and haven't kept up to speed. If that were true, the sever post world war I decline would have finished us all off about the time of WW II. But even allowing for a moment that we need immigration for economic reasons, what does that say about our own society? Why are WE not replacing our population? Why do we have to rely on others to do it for us? It's a pathology I suspect. I believe that this immigration thing grew its own legs and now we're conducting immigration for no better reason than for the sake of immigration...the mindless perception that it's somehow fair to open the floodgates and let the barabarians flood across the Danube. It's insane and it's time it stopped.

You're getting led deeper into this swamp, and you just don't have the mental wherewithall to play. You see, there are two elements to this; the factual, and the normative. You are claiming that it's prejudicial to avoid jumping in front of buses and put flammable liquids in hot spaces, and to carry the analogy further, prejudicial to leap into lion's dens and meatgrinders. All of which is true. But you are also making a mormative value judgement about it, and claiming that it's smarter and better to put flammable liqiuds in hot rooms and jump in front of buses and into lion's dens and meatgrinders, because to avoid doing so would be prejudicial, or "racist," as you claim in a carryforward grounding. That's just dumb.

I sometimes despair at the nonsense that passes for reason in our society.

Yes, but the reason you do those things is because you have prejudicially determined that if you don't, you'll be set alight. Had you not been prejudicial, you would not have taken those precautions. Why do you have such a hard time focussing on the logic of every situation?

You don't. Free speech is self evidently free speech. Parsing it out and making exceptions makes it not free. The only jackbooted totalitarian in this story is the "Human Rights Tribunal." Why does the left have such a hard time allowing people to think for themselves? I realize that some of the left's ideas are so out to lunch that they have to protect them behind legality in order for anyone to take them even slightly seriously, but to posit disagreement or opinion as "hate" is quite something. In fact, why shouldn't people have the right to "hate" if that's what tickles their fancy? I think we should stop immigration. I think we should stop immigration for a number of reasons, both genetic (as already discussed), cultural, and for social cohesion. I think Indians in Caledonia should be forcibly expelled with loss of life if necessary. I have no idea whether saying so is "promoting hate" according to these "human rights" goons, but I certainly won't stop saying it.

That's just not true. Unfortunately that's what it's become, but the Conservatives won the last election precisely because they had a plan, and outlined their plan long before the election was called. For decades the Libs have simply approached elections as a dog and pony show, where all they have to do is dust of some old promises, inflate a few new ones, and holler "wooo scary rightwing." Then after the election they just went back to cruise control, confident in the notion that they were the ONE TRVE Party. There's something called "portfolio drift" in financial management. It's when an asset class either sinks or shoots ahead of the others, causing an imbalance and incremental drift away from it's original mandated parameters. I believe the Liberals displayed this same trait over time since 1993...they drifted out of line with the Canadian demos, each election becoming more arrogant than the last, and each time becoming further out of touch with the electorate. With Dion at the head they are almost in lalaland...this Kyoto nonsense is evidence of that even if nothing else is. And much else is, to be sure.

Care to point to an example of that?

Leaving aside the fact that Argus was obviously talking about "racism," since that's the term you juxtaposed against "common sense," care to explain the cleverness and virtue of putting flammable liquids in a hot area to avoid the accusation of "prejudice?" It is both common sense and prejudice to not do so, and piously doing it so you can pat yourself on the arse and announce your "unprejudiced" actions will in all likelyhood preface a mighty explosion. Granted, you can run ablaze from the room, confident in your openmindedness and willingness to give flammable liquids in hot places the benefit of the doubt, but you won't be showing much common sense, or, might I say, intelligence. Jumping in front of a bus because it would be prejudicial to suspect you'll get run over is not bright either. Gawd save us from fools and knaves.

Yes Jerry, I'm ultra left. Stop clogging the thread.

I wonder why the Jews have been suffering through these indignities in prison for a couple hundred years. I'm beginning to think Muslims are nothing but whiney thugs. A Muslim inmate has won $2,000 and a partial human rights victory over a Correctional Service of Canada policy not to replace bacon with a halal diet for Islam-worshipping cons. http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...514133-sun.html

"This would greatly help to avoid any future protests/occupations within our mutual territories," Obviously out to set up a tin pot dictatorship, as long as he can keep the paychecks rolling. This is a blatant protection racket.

Great googling. The sad fact is that you can only find the very odd mention of it in history, and no real historians who endorse the harebrained nonsense. Someone is James Fenimore Cooper's father? That's an endorsement of authenticity? Here's one of the funniest things you've ever read. It's by Mark Twain, about JFC: "There are nineteen rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction -- some say twenty-two. In "Deerslayer," Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require: 1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the "Deerslayer" tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in air. 2. They require that the episodes in a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the "Deerslayer" tale is not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to develop... ...Cooper describes the ark, but pretty obscurely. In the matter of dimensions "it was little more than a modern canal boat." Let us guess, then, that it was about one hundred and forty feet long. It was of "greater breadth than common." Let us guess then that it was about sixteen feet wide. This leviathon had been prowling down bends which were but a third as long as itself, and scraping between banks where it only had two feet of space to spare on each side. We cannot too much admire this miracle... ...The ark is one hundred and forty-feet long; the dwelling is ninety feet long. The idea of the Indians is to drop softly and secretly from the arched sapling to the dwelling as the ark creeps along under it at the rate of a mile an hour,and butcher the family. It will take the ark a minute and a half to pass under. It will take the ninety-foot dwelling a minute to pass under. Now, then, what did the six Indians do? It would take you thirty years to guess, and even then you would have to give it up, I believe. Therefore, I will tell you what the Indians did. Their chief, a person of quite extraordinary intellect for a Cooper Indian, warily watched the canal-boat as it squeezed along under him and when he had got his calculations fined down to exactly the right shade, as he judge, he let go and dropped. And missed the boat! That is actually what he did. He missed the house, and landed int he stern of the scow. It was not much of a fall, yet it knocked him silly. He lay there unconscious. If the house had been ninety-seven feet long he would have made the trip. The error lay in the construction of the house. Cooper was no architect. There still remained in the roost five Indians. The boat has passed under and is now out of their reach. Let me explain what the five did -- you would not be able to reason it out for yourself. No. 1 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water astern of it. Then No. 2 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water still further astern of it. Then No. 3 jumped for the boat, and fell a good way astern of it. Then No. 4 jumped for the boat, and fell in the water away astern. Then even No. 5 made a jump for the boat -- for he was Cooper Indian. In that matter of intellect, the difference between a Cooper Indian and the Indian that stands in front of the cigar-shop is not spacious. The scow episode is really a sublime burst of invention; but it does not thrill, because the inaccuracy of details throw a sort of air of fictitiousness and general improbability over it. This comes of Cooper's inadequacy as observer..." http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html So much for the fount of James Fenimore Cooper's knowledge.

Yeah I saw the video of those fat slugs howling pottymouth at someone. I wish a few good ol' boys would wade into them with 2x4s and teach them what's what. Hell, I'd join the fun myself...