ScottSA

God forbid that anyone actually have a position to stand behind.

Coulter is hot. That's an absolute truth, not an opinion. Plato even had a form for Coulter.

All things being equal, I'd agree with you. Under the circumstances though, I think it much more likely though that China will not become a first world state anytime soon, and faces the more likely prospect of destablizing into either martial law or anarchy. The political infrastructure is simply not there to become a first world country. The military is largely self-regulating, the bureaucracy is better suited to the Ching dynasty than to the modern world, and the social dynamics are in a state of flux and have been since the turn of the century, from warlordism to militarism, to Japanese invasion, to communist militarism, to radical communist social change, and over the last 40 years back to capitalism. Add to that the minority problems, the inequal regional changes and a host of other problems, including perhaps most significantly a growing adventurism in foreign policy, and things don't look good for either China or anything China touches.

I applaude the moderator's attempt to keep things on an even keel, but it seems that the moderation is getting ever more intrusive. The immediate manifestation of this is the thread title "Hypocritic Liberals" being changed to "Liberal track record under Dion, native rights and the environment." Why? The reason given was "to avoid provoking an inflammatory or insulting discussion as well as to convey a more precise description of the topic." As for the first reason, isn't this a political discussion board? If the post attracts insults and flames, isn't that something to be taken up with the flaming insulter rather than the title? The title insulted the Liberals, and the post supported the insult. The title didn't insult any posters on this board. Is the aim to create a milquetoast CBC type townhall discussion or to provoke lively debate? To the second reason, turning the title into a table of contents may be precise, but is it strictly necessary? Besides, the topic is 'Liberal hypocrisy,' and the particulars of that hypocrisy are merely to support the charge, so isn't the title change actually wrong? On a larger theme, isn't less moderation better than more? Do we really need to combine threads and change titles and do things at the very margins of need?

Why not just entitle all your threads "Harper SuXoR!!!! just to save the trouble of determining each day's reason why you think so?

So what are you saying? Are you pissed that muslim immigrants are not wearing halter tops? Are you pissed that we are not as intolerant as Saudi Arabia? Why shouldn't he be? I dunno, I thought it was a free country. Agreed. Perhaps we ought to screen more closely those who want to come here. That way everyone can be free, and still not to have to watch bagged women walking around.

So what are you saying? Are you pissed that muslim immigrants are not wearing halter tops? Are you pissed that we are not as intolerant as Saudi Arabia? Why shouldn't he be?

But, but...there was that abortion doctor who was like shot a couple years ago...what about that? Christianity is way worse, right?

This is not about the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is about Islamic Organizations that are not what they seem. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...08/nterr308.xml

This is atrocious ad hominem. He is talking about an elephant squatting on the table in the middle of the room that no one dares talk about. The demographics of Canada are a very valid question...one would think that a Jew of all people would see that. Perhaps, having conceded the raciality of Jewishness, you'd like to describe to "racism" of not letting Arabs in great numbers into Israel as full citizens. Perhaps because it would be political, social and quite likely physical suicide. Every other racial group in the world is proudly homogenous, but as soon as a caucasian starts talking about homogeneity, the monkeys crawl out of the woodwork flinging odure. What exactly is the problem with what he's saying? No one is burning crosses or wearing hoods, and so what if they were? Maybe we all should have done that a long time ago instead of placidly standing by watching the coming disaster unfold. I don't agree with his categorizations, but the fact that he is talking about the issue is no call for this pathetic display of spleen. It's long past time it was debated.

What about those times in which a stated intent is NOT a real intent? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,491925,00.html

I'm a conservative and, having looked at the facts of climate change, can't fathom why anyone would consider it a partisan issue. Most people on the right have accepted the science. There are a few wingnuts out there from both sides of the political spectrum who believe in conspiracy theories and reject it as a socialist plot. They're mostly confined to anonymous posters on the internet though (and invariably they have about a Grade 3 level of grammar and spelling). No one with any credibility denies that climate change is happening. Cute ad hominem. I can almost guarantee I've got more education than you, not bad spelling, and grammar that doesn't often send people shrieking from the room in auditory pain. "Rejecting" GW is hardly part of a "conspiracy theory," although apparently not being able to distinguish between Kyoto, global warming, and man-made global warming theories is not a mark of stirling intellect on your part. Let me educate you on the beliefs of the "wingnuts:" Kyoto: socialist plot Global warming: possible Manmade Global warming: highly questionable, no consensus, no real science, dependent upon multi variant hypothesis in which even the first level of data is corrupted or unusable and the last level is untestable hypothetical modelling.

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid. That's nice. And?

Smart blondes are welcome anywhere. I should have said caucasian.

What an odd way to look at the world. Looking at a woman's hair is an impermissable turn on, but nuzzling her breasts will take the turn on away? Just imagine how effective sex would be...that would most certainly bring the fellow right into the family in a big way...so to speak.

And here's another tidbit. I'm sure we've all heard about "Farfur" the Palestinian Mickey Mouse, who was "martyred" by the evil Jew...here's the martyrdom. Not safe for children... I'd throttle the annoying rodent myself after listening to that shrieking voice for two and a half minutes...

It's this type of self hate that will doom Caucasians.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war. More like having to deal with the myth of "concensus," as if it has anything to do with scientific enquiry even if it were true.

Not quite yet...here's the 24 carat resource for anyone faced with the intransigent stupidity of trutherness: http://www.debunking911.com/

I think it would help from a definitional perspective to take the "white" out and transplant "Anglo-Saxon." It would also help avoid the tiresome PC attacks that will no doubt ensue momentarly.

Really? *snicker* Do tell.

Canadian bancrupty laws are very similar, varying from provionce to province. I believe that in most provinces one is only allowed to keep some of the equity in their home.

I find it interesting that the crux of US critique of global warming theory is predicated upon attacking Al Gore. Even if you prove that Al Gore is a complete idiot, moron, fool and/or anti-American, that doesn't change global warming theory one whit. Though, apparently it is sufficient for US government policy. That is scary. It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

Like I said above, this analogy is unserious and unworthy of reply. An analogy doesn't have to be serious in order to convey an idea. Either some things are negotiable or they are not. You claim all things are negotiable; I'm showing you that all things are not negotiable, even to you. You either willfully or stupidly refuse to see the point, and choose to flippantly dismiss it...painting yourself more as a spiteful child than the clever wit you seem to think you are. But whatever...

As usual, a well put-together, thoughtful thread. I am also disturbed that Marc Steyn left out the part about American Muslims. The point may be that a society that is genuinely open to their joining it has less to fear from the Muslims' superstitions/sexual frustraton/hatreds. I don't know how good or bad Canada is on this score, but I think this is another pat on the back for the American "melting pot" model and a mark against multiculturalism. I think there is more research you need to do on what is going on in America. Read up on Michigan. It's when Muslims get together in enough numbers to reach that critical mass that enabled exclusion that things start to get hairy. In theory, the melting pot atomises everyone, but in fact it doesn't really work that way, and even less so with visible minorities, and far less so with Musselmen.