ScottSA

I was looking at some of the other shows and their descriptions, and the whole thing reeks of leftism. Look for instance at this one: or this one

Yes, obviously there must be a genotype difference in order for there to be a phenotype difference, regardless of how "small" one might want to claim it is. But none of that really matters. The fact is that race exists; denying it is foolish and amounts to nothing more than dragging a red herring back and forth over the path.

Thereby, it blows the race arguement out of the water, by your own admission. You wrote because" by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black" We can't distinguish, except for some environmental responses that evolved through time, get it yet? Coloured skin, a response to sun exposure, the blood disorder I cited, common amongst people, who orignate around the mediterranean region, black, white & olive skin. If you needed a transfusion, would you take blood from a person of colour? Of course you would , cause it's the same as yours. in fact, we are so very nearly genetically indistinguishable from apes, that they can be transfused with our blood, in all likelihood. bye bye bogus race arguement. I think it's you who is not getting it. This is logic 101: 1 Your position is that there is no such thing as race. 2 You supply in evidence the fact that genetic difference between races is minimal, thereby hinging your argument that race doesn't exist on genetic similarity. 3 You, for some reason, supply evidence that genetic difference between apes and humans is minimal too. Fact: Apes and humans are different. Therefore, if apes and humans are different in spite of genetic similarities, your contention that races do not exist because of genetic similarities is severely weakened by your own evidentiary claims. And frankly the whole argument, even if you hadn't managed to torpedo its hull on your own, is nonsensical. Regardless of whether the differences in the genetics of race are minimal or not, the phenotypology of race is obvious. Everybody knows what "race" means, everybody can see the difference between races (No way is anyone going to give me a treaty card, for instance), and really all you're practising is obscurantism. In using this argument, you're fitting the emperor with new clothes.

I couldn't find the story. Is she mentioned in a story about something else?

Harper did it. Harper roxors! After he showed people that crime doesn't pay by busting the Liberal snouts in the trough, epiphanies swept the land, and people came to the realization that they ought to work for a living instead of steal. Prior to that they had only the liberals as role models.

I believe everything as you, except for the punishment part. I sincerely doubt there is a need for punishment, per se...just a need for further spiritual self-realization. Thomas Merton it was I believe who said he suspected that hell is loneliness; a formulation that works in reverse as well. By loneliness he seems to have meant a lack of fellowship, or isolation. Either way I strongly suspect there is no lake of fire or whatever nasties the medieval mind thunked up to scare the peasants. But I think atheists are in for one hell of a surprise when they die.

I am aware that roman roads had steps in them (so pedestrains might avoid the muck, and they had gutters too...but this intentionally carving ruts? To what purpose and is there any evidence of this? Why yes, there is: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vwb_H8...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:dO7oN3...clnk&cd=5&gl=ca

If people were allowed to keep there religious beliefs and worship openly, then isn't that religious freedom? It wasn't perfect harmony, but then again religious freedom in the Islamic world looks better when comparing this period to the conquering kingdoms of Europe(Carolingian, Merovingian, the Reconquista period and Spanish Inquisition) which had little tolerance to any religions except Christianity. I'm not claiming Christianity was all peaches and cream for other religions either; that has nothing to do with it. I'm simply pointing out that this sterilized Edward Siadist description of Islam is sheer nonsense. No, it's not religious freedom when other religions can't go to court against a Muslim, or where a non-Muslim has to pay special taxes for not being Muslim, or where there is an entirely seperate and harsher set of laws for non-Muslims. Nor is it religious freedom to frequently pogrom on non-Muslims. No, that's not religious freedom. And not only that, but the alleged "inventions" of Islam weren't Islamic at all. In fact, Islam has given the world nothing but backwardness and grief.

That, perhaps more than anything I could ever say, demonstrates the hate, self-hate, and envy that is pitted against caucasians in the west. It's why I don't want my daughter to inherit a world with no place to retreat to.

Apart from working jobs opening business's , paying taxes , raising future tax payers , enriching this country, spurring on or at least helping our economy, fueling the housing industry. You have pointed out our current level of home grown babies is lacking, then the only other option is too stagnate. How ridiculous. Why do we have to "grow?" Continuing to fill Canada with immigrants does not help the economy in any way, and simply claiming it does doesn't make it so. Even the hardcore proponents of immigration have for the most part moved on from the extremely questionable economic arguments and are now embracing "diversity" for the sake of it.

How can you be so sure of that? It got to that point in Britain ( and other European countries) and we have a culture and government not very different from theirs. Because we will have the benefit, fortunately for us and unfortunately for Europe, of watching the crisis unfold a decade ahead of us. No it can't be. How? There is simply no way that immigration helps us.

Then you have a problem with multiculturalism. As should everyone.

...in which case, you don't have an argument, period. Perhaps if you could make an argument for what ever it is that you are arguing for that isn't full of holes...... What exactly do you think you've proved by posting those two snippets? There seems to be no correlation.

Yup. That's me. Thanks for stopping by. Headed back to the race thread? Is there something you'd like to get off your chest? Is there an issue you have with the "race thread," or are you waiting for instructions from Liberal HQ before addressing it?

So the roman roads in Britain predate the empire? Nope, but the guage of transport used there does, and if it was originally determined by chariots, then it would hold over. I have no idea if "war chariots" set the guage, but given that many roman roads had ruts intentionally carved into them, there is at least some reason to believe that there might be more to this story. Party pooper.

Well, you're partly right about demand, but capital availability is every bit as strong a determinant as demand. All the demand in the world won't drive prices if no one can afford the prices, and in fact the Law of Demand determines at what point demand and price are optimized. Purchasing power is one of the determinants of that relationship. To claim that the entry of the second income is a response to rising prices is foolish, since the increased purchasing power of the second income is a determinant of the price in the first place. You're in effect claiming that a horse pulling a roman war chariot is the size he is because his foal is big.

I'm not making a scientific argument. In fact I'm pointing out that the politico-scientific emperor has no clothes in this case.

That article simply says that there is no proof, but it is reasonable to assume that the measurements didn't simply come out of thin air, and that even if Stephenson was the one who determined the width, he didn't simply pluck it from the air. As for the chariot story, the first roads predated the empire, so the guage could very well have been set before the imperium. Anyway, you're being a party pooper.

What a silly and entirely pointless use of bandwidth.

I posted this before, as a matter of general interest, because I found it interesting, and I thought most folks would find it interesting. I was told that I couldn't post it because: A ) "Plagiarism" isn't allowed, and B ) "There is no "political commentary" added to the post. A ) The following is in general distribution as an email, and requires no citation. Posting it is not "plagiarism." B ) I posted it then and I post it now only because I find it interesting and think others will too, but with a nod toward the required "political commentary"...ummmm...ok, did you know that the Romans built the spaceshuttle, and that therefore...no wait...on a serious note, this demonstrates, I think, that the roots of culture go much deeper into history than we often acknowledge in today's fragmented postmodern society, where so much effort is being pouring into destroying the commonalities of western culture and fragmenting them in order to accomodate multiculturalism. Anyway, here it it:

I don't think that one necessarily follows the other. Yes, one necessarily follows the other. Without available and widespread purchasing power, the market wouldn't support the prices. The kind of family surplus necessary to afford that kind of purchasing power isn't generally available from one income.

It will be hard for any Canadian leader to extend beyond 2009 with so little support from the rest of NATO. Or from people like you, who know not a damned thing about the place and are determined not to. And it's sad, because your mind is made up, not by the mission itself, but by the government that supports the mission. If the liberals were in power you'd be all over it. You are one of the most transparently partisan posters on this board.

Who cares? If anything this degrades the argument that race doesn't exist. If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races. In any event its moot. To claim that race doesn't exist is more or less claiming that the emperor's new clothes are very nice.

Pardon me, but this filtered Google U version is a crock of arseware. Such "cross cultural networks" as existed were relevant because the Arabs had conquered them. If the Zulus or the Hottentot had conquered them they'd be "cross cultural networks" too...it's not a function of Islam that people didn't stop trading. And this idiotic myth of "religious freedom" that keeps popping up is ridiculous. It's easy to allow subgroups to exist and pay tribute once you've culled them down to powerlessness...just ask the european Jews. Or the Iranian ones for that matter.

One wonders why the campaign doesn't seem to include the virulent hatred coming from Islam.