ScottSA

Perhaps you should read the entire thread in order to avoid such an obvious strawman. Show me where they "omitted everyone but Chinese Canadians". "But he later said the NAP wasn't a Chinese Canadian party and he intended to recruit immigrants from all ethnic groups." Link Why are you trying to play this infantile game? You keep edging backwards, dragging the goalposts with you. A minute ago you were denying that saying they would work hard for Chinese Canadians wasn't exclusionary, and now you're denying that they said it...or at least they changed their minds or whatever. Lets set the grounds rules so I don't have to chase you all over the playing field. What purpose do you think this party serves? Why do you think it was formed?

How interesting. We both live well, are both married to a nurse (presumably not the same one), and both write for a living. I even used to live in Winnipeg, but don't anymore, which explains why I'm always right in juxtaposition to your always wrong. I used to write too back in the old country as a part-time job. Regularly published. Comics-form. Those days I consider one of the biggest and colorful adventures of my life. But of course the pay wasn't good, and of course I was using my first language. That's what I miss the most, writing. I tried writing here..... but I don't think my English is good enough to be considered for publication. Good editors can do wonders.

If you take the first and fourth letters of his name, and add l,l,o,n,y,s,s, and r, and then carefully rearrange them, you get "grassy knoll." This startling new fact brought to you by Conspiracies r us. Oh, and a "g."

Answer the question... Oh, I assumed you didn't need an answer to such a transparent rhetorical question. Of course the CPC works for White canadians. But I have yet to see an advertisment claiming that it works for white canadians...[full stop]. Have you? I really don't know why you choose to go this route...I mean really, if you don't get the distinction between the exclusionary ommission of everyone but "Chinese canadians" and the unstated inclusion of Chinese canadians, you really ought to take a course in...well...something.

Not unless you give me some reason to have a problem with it... Are you saying the Conservatives don't work hard for White Canadians? I'm not talking about the Conservatives. I'm talking about a party that bills itself as dedicated to the betterment of white canadians. Please note that it doesn't expand that mandate to all canadians, but merely mentions white canadians. You won't have a problem with that, eh?

No, but some people on this forum seem to think that if a party says it will work hard for Chinese-Canadians, that somehow makes them "Chinese-only". Apparently you missed that. So if I start a party that says it will work hard for White Canadians, you'll have no problem at all with that, right?

You level this comment against many people in these forums. Particularly anyone who takes issue with any of your unsupported statements. You want your opinion and your analogies to be considered as truth. It would appear to me that you do not want a discussion. You want people to believe you. Oh gosh no. Getting people to believe me is the furthest thing from my mind, as I'm sure it is with all posters here. We only post because we like the sensation of banging keyboards with our fingertips...God forbid that we actually hope to convince anyone of anything. I level this comment against the folks who leap out of the wood work and yap away about me rather than whatever point I'm making. Let's see...yup...just like you! But just for the record, I believe my statements are generally supported unless they fall into the category of generally accepted knowledge, in which case I leave it to the discretion of my opponent to look into the facts before making an ass of himself.

It's two soldiers. Hardly a revolt. The poppyfield nonsense is just pure fabrication. Is this part of the disinformation internet campaign the ululating Imams are ordering all good Jihadists to undertake? Do you have any idea how ineffective it is outside the heads of such stirling intellects as Buffy et. al.?

I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that Iran will give a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas. As much as some of those folks might like to blow the evil Jew and themselves to kingdom come, the strategic use of nukes from the perspective of Iran is better served by using them for deterence. Once they pop off, the chickens will come home to roost in the form of a big fireball over Tehran, and that won't serve anyone, including the 12th Imam, any good. I don't think that's the concern. I think a much more immediate concern is the potential for Iran to get the bomb, establish deterence (which doesn't depend on parity), and then beef up both Hezbollah and Hamas with virtual impugnity and in perpetuity, keeping Israel reeling on its feet at no real cost to Iran. A further reaching danger is that once under a nuclear umbrella, Iran can throw its weight around regionally, including Iraq, and no one can do much about it. What most folks don't get is that having nukes is far more politically powerful than using nukes. Nukes of the type that Iran can aspire to, at least in the short term, are no more than big bombs with a high pollution factor. They are not the city busters that the western nations and russia have. But the contest in the nuclear club is not about who has the bigger stick, it's about who is going to pull the trigger in a Mexican standoff, and the answer so far is: nobody. The purpose of deterence is to preserve the political status quo from the machinations of an enemy...not to nuke the opposing side into radioactive dust. In a highly developed and well choreographed nuclear standoff like that between the US and the USSR, various layers of nuclear capability came into play, like first, second, and third strike capability, but again, it wasn't about one side being able to irradiate a bit more of the remaining dust particles on the other side, it was about the demonstrated capability of doing so. In a basic deterence umbrella, all one side needs is a bullet in the chamber...it doesn't matter whether it's a 22 cal or a 50 cal. With even a couple of bombs, Iran will have achieved a nuclear umbrella under which it can, to its mind at least, undertake all sorts of conventional adventures.

You're not looking for a just war, or anything to do with just war theory, for that matter. You're looking for 100% pure sweetness and light, and you'll be hard pressed to find it in any facet of life, much less war.

$100 million to try Picton. A significant % of our population behind bars. Too many lawyers. Heres what I really dont understand. How does the law of supply and demand not apply to lawyers? How come we have more lawyers in Toronto than there are in either Japan or Korea yet our system moves slower and costs more? Clearly we should cap the number of lawyers and reform our system to be more like (not totally) Japan's. It will not happen because everyone is to afraid of giving up a little of their due process. We have far too much due process. If you want to change the way judges are appointed that is one thing. Judges are professionals who know, practise, and are trained in the law. Juries are people who can let off defendents who have silkly lawyers. The cost of holding people in prison. The problem of too many people being in prison. The problem of too many lawyers charging too much money. These are all important issues. They are just not the current issue. Juries exist so laywers can try and fool them. Our entire system is based around both sides dogmatically pushing their viewpoint regardless instead of a quest for the truth. This line of reasoning is hardly libertarian...in fact it's rather elitist. Plato first came up with it, but it trickled down through human praxis in various forms of autocracy and tyranny for centuries upon centuries. I'm not saying it's bad per se...democracy may very well be an anomaly in the pageant of history...but it's about as far from libertarianism as one can get. In a nutshell you're arguing that the masses are too easily fooled to be given the responsibility of administering justice. What you seem to be in favor of is some form of dispassionate arbiter or Hobbesian Leviathan who can 'know' the truth without the expense and trouble of a trial, or lawyers, or juries. It's been tried before. Most of history involves just exactly that. What Marx called "Asiatic despotism," and what Lenin called 'justice,' both amount to the same thing in the legal context.

So what? I want to be filthy rich, like Paris Hilton. In fact, I want to be rich and live in the Hilton, and in Paris too, for that matter...both of them. But does that mean that Paris Hilton is obligated to give me her money because I want to make my life better? Where did this idea originate that coming to Canada is a "right" of immigrants? It's not. Oh, and splitting hairs as to whether Chinese refers to an ethnicity or a race is silly. In fact, primae facia, it refers to a nationality, which makes the party leaders traitors and Canada in the middle of a rather severe international crisis. Fortunately, we all know what they're talking about even if you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US...iveries_to_USSR Like India's nuclear weapons, they were for "peaceful purposes." Never seen a Sherman hitched to a plow? The ground doesn't stand a chance. The machine guns were for pest control. Stop making a mountain out of 4 trillion tonnes of rock a molehill.

Well, now we know fer shur that the allies were instrumental in defeating Hitler. There's another of those pesky historical questions cleared up by the scientific certainty that if Mad Mikey says 'white,' the real answer is 'black.'

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith. Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature. And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do. That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile. I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people. There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found. Right. And quite remarkably, those older people tend to move to precisely the religion that they were brought up in - or atleast, in over 90% of cases where this phenomena is known to occur. If your theory was even remotely credible, then these 'older people' might be expected to adopt a variety of different religous views. They generally don't. You are correct in one respect though. People as they age often do 'come back' to the religion that they 'drifted' away from in their younger days. Picking or choosing amongst a hundred various sects amongst the Christian religion is of course equally simple. Indeed, in well over 90% of cases, they will magically choose the one that they were brought up with. Remarkable coincidence that. If you are going to assert that religion isn't inherited from your parents (as is the statistical case of over 90% of Americans who claim to be religious), then you have to offer a more convincing argument. P.S. Your assertion that my argument here is "facile" is troll bait. I replied politely. I don't always reply to troll bait with such politeness. Nor are you own troll baits very polite, although the beatings you've suffered ought to eventually tone you down. Is it possible that people return later in life to the religion of their upbringing because that is the type of spirituality they are familiar with rather than because of some learned response during youth? Isn't it possible that the object is not a return to a specific religion as much as a quest for spirituality? Is it more reasonable for an elderly European or North American grandma who was raised a Presbyterian to seek out spirituality in an ashram or in a church? The immediate problem you are having is in the facile assumption that religion is the equivalent of spiritualism...one is a method and the other an object. But your larger problem is that facile undergrad philosophy majors learn in a sort of linear modelling that precludes thinking outside the box. Couple that with the arrogance of atheism and all that ever emerges is strawmen. People returning to the religion of their youth is quite natural, and in no way discredits their quest for faith and spirituality.

That's an ironic position for a self-defined libertarian to take, although since fascists and libertarians are at opposite ends of the traditional political spectrum, I can see that the confusion predates this thread.

Also on the party's website: "Today I want to talk more specifically about how my new government will address the concerns of hard-working immigrants and new Canadians" "Hard-working immigrants and new Canadians need a new government – a government that shares your values, a government that shares your priorities." "New Canadians will be a critical part of making the 21st century our greatest one yet. New Canadians deserve a federal government that truly respects your efforts and hard work, understands your values, and never takes you for granted" "On January 23rd, stand up for accountability, stand up for new Canadians, stand up for Canada." Ooops, wrong party. That was from the Conservative Website I guess that means the Conservatives are also an immigrant-only party?? Just to help out your remedial reading skills, "Chinese" is not an alternate spelling of "new."

The article on the hockey stick graph does not say that the original was wrong. It says that newer models are better but that new data still falls within the error bars on the orginal graph. This article also seems very objective to me as it points out that scientists are very aware of the uncertainties in climate modeling. By not objective do you really mean it disagrees with your viewpoint? I'll defer to Jerry's more detailed observations above, but I suggest that before you start accusing people of being entrenched in their viewpoint, you first look in the mirror. I believe that an objective reading of the piece in the article you supplied would find: 1 It is a defence of the Manmade GW proponents 2 It is objective enough to admit the weaknesses in the Manmade GW case, but not objective enough to be forthright about it. Instead it couches the evidential uncertainties as stages on a pre-ordained learning curve rather than as the fundamental uncertainties they are. In other words, it's saying that the conclusion is right, even though the evidence isn't there toi support it. Read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean.

This is one of the reasons why there is a growing anti-immigration backlash. It is a priveledge for you to come here, not a right. The onus is not upon us to change our ways, it is on you to agree to live within them. You have the choice to accept or decline our customs, just as we have the right to refuse you entry if we so choose. We don't have to change. You do. As for race-based parties, you come from one of the most proudly racist countries in the world. The predominant Han Chinese even look down on such other ethnic Chinese groups as have managed to survive the scourges of history, so you are really in no position to tell us how harmless race-based parties are. The morality of the thing doesn't hinge on how much support the party may or may not have...it doesn't become "ok" just because its support base is low, but bad if its support is high. It is bad because it is bad, not for any other reason.

I guess you've never seen anyone who has been blown up with a rocket, huh?

You should know. I await with bated breath the point to this post.

Yes, this is a seemingly valid point. However, the fact that homosexuals were not identified as existing prior to the 19th century, does not mean they didn't exist prior to 19th century - identity or act. I would say that Sappho was not only indentified but lauded.... ...the only difference between then and now is that while homosexuals had romantic relationships it did not preclude their coventional relationships as husbands and wives. And like the 18th century adult have a mistress or lover, discetion was the norm. I can't remember what they were called..."Polly houses" or some such...but homosexual whorehouses were quite common in Victorian England. I actually have no problem with that...hegemonic society treated it with scorn, and the government for the most part ignored it...as was the case in most societies throughout history. Occasionally this or that society has elevated faggotry to a neutral, but it's always shortlived in the scope of history. Anyone who thinks bumbuggery will be accepted henceforth and forever is deluding themselves mightily.

scottsa: WW2, is so convoluted, Russia was an ally of the west, so I guess we should clarifiy which allies we speak of at what times. When Hitler, launched his first attack, which way did he go, he went east , to Poland, why? The Eastern front was the front of the most massive casualties, one must surmise, that the prize for Germany had all along been Russia, despite there agreement to not fight on another. It is quite likely the attack on Poland had been the first indicator of this. Casualties on the western front were substantially less, indicating to my mind, this was not as important as the march eastward. When one looks at a map after ww2, one sees clearly how much territory had been gained by Russia, through war with Germany and subsequent occupation. Given the unending concern of the US, with Russia, (the 2 superpowers) it is not the least bit unbelievable that the US has an interest in seeing Russia's westward march stopped. The quest afterwards to gain Nazi scientists , and gather Nazi's for the US's benefit is also another indicator of the threat the Russian ww2 actions had posed to the US. Amongst other things. anyway, this is about just war, and I should like to see it as that. If ww2 was about just (justice) why then did the US , undertake to fill there ranks with the worst of the worst of the nazi's, it could not have been "just" it could have only been power. You're making about 18 different arguments here, so lets focus on your original argument: that the allies entered the war to stop the westward march of the USSR. I and others are attempting to point out that the allies entered the war long before the USSR began its westward march. No one is disputing that Hitler's expansionist policies lay to the east...he made that clear in the early 1920s when he began to bang the leibenstrau drum...that's not at issue. Russia was not a superpower at the time...but that's not at issue either. What the allies did after the war is not at issue either. If I were to argue that WW II was a "just" war from the perspective of the western European allies, I would say it was fought to preserve the integrity of sovereignty and the final shreds of dignity still left to alliance politics. I would say the USSR and the US fought a just war because they entered the war defensively through no fault of their own (cue here for poly or his clones to pop up and edumacate us on the Rooseveltian plot to bomb PH). Of course, if Germany had won, it would argue that the Treaty of Versailles had forced it into war (in spite of the fact that by 1939 the treaty was moot), or even, as Hitler's convoluted thought process went, that leibenstrau was necessary to the German volk and the war was therefrore just. I don't think he would have even bothered invoking the faked attack by Poland, or in fact any of the traditional justifications for war. Thomas Aquinas developed his ideas long before the rise of relativism destroyed absolutes in academic thinking processes, so what used to make unerring sense no longer seems to. But that doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, that greed or self-interest is the prime motivator everywhere and always. It isn't. And unnoticed by many folks is the fact that relativism is losing ground on a lot of fronts these days...and in spite of some of the dangers, I can only think it's a good thing.

I don't think that's necessarily so. If a nation attacked Canada and we had no choice but to go to war to defend ourselves, it may seem as though the war is just; however, the reason for the invasion begin with is most certainly not just and we'd simply be dragged into an unjust situation. That's not what 'just war' refers to. It refers to either side in the war, not the war itself. One can say, without contradiction, that the aliies fought a just war and the axis did not. Or vice versa, I suppose.

Right. Should we wait till they have 100 missiles? 200? How many missiles should we let them get before we attack a terrorist organization? Do you ever think before you type?