Sir Bandelot

My view is, it depends on what yardstick you use to measure success. In terms of technological progress western culture is more advanced. That is obvious. But it does not meet all the needs of all people. Western culture has a de-humanizing effect in making people workers who create products or services that have nothing to do with their lives, other than a means of earning wages. When we make machines, we add workers to them and they become part of the machine. Idustrialization creates many chemicals, industrial farming has been known to poison ground water systems. Western culture allows us to have a much larger population because of industrialization, but that is not necessarly a good thing. If in the end a culture dies out because of its way of life, by that I mean exterminates itself, and another different culture would remain sustainable for much longer time, for whatever combination of reasons, which one is then superior?

Certainly. I do not approve of it in any case, right, left or up, down. I don't want to provoke you. I only mention it because I was reading the forum rules this morning, and then I read this post. The rules are there to improve the quality of the debate.

Kingston Ontario is a small city with a population of about 115,000. The population is predominantly white, very few immigrants of "colour". While I have a great job here as an engineer, most of the city is living in squalor. Almost every single kid that is friends of my children comes from a single-family home. I am the only Dad amongst about 20 kids we know. A few years ago my son made friends with an asian boy whose family moved in nearby. They had two parents. The kid was not allowed to play much, just once in a while. My son told me his friend has to read his school books and study every night, regardless of whether there was homework to do or not. He has a computer, but is not allowed to play video games, or very little. The family is very conservative. the kid seems nice and polite and not unhappy, so I don't criticise it. But the contrast between that, and the typical families in Kingston is startling. The outcome has to be, that this kid will have opportunities to be a doctor or engineer or whatever he wants, not because he was born smart but becase he has put the work in, and had a family that kept him focussed on what they believed is important. The other families have big problems here, alcohol abuse is rampant and the kids are smoking at a young age. Makes it difficult for me as a parent to keep my kids on the straight and narrow, but my kids are grateful that they have two parents when they see whats going on in other homes. So that is another impression of "white" culture vs non. Another interesting point about this town, many of the skilled trade workers are immigrants, Italian, Portuguese construction workers. Tha Asians run stores and work tirelessly it seems, long hours even on holidays. They are willing to do the work that others are not. Sadly, a large percentage of white english Canadians living here are lazy, addicted to drugs, overweight and divorced.

I would like to say that IMO, threads lke this are only inflammatory. There certainly can't be much useful come out of a thread like this. Although I'm not a leftist, those people who are, or those who might agree with many of the ten points could only be offended by being equated to an idiot, simply because they hold a different view than the original poster. - "Maple Leaf Web operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. If at any time the discussion cease to be "intelligent" and "responsible" then the discussion will be ended. - Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. " Maybe someone might say, well it's not serious, but still it can only offence for those people who do believe on the ten points, whether they're "leftists" or not. So why not delete this, instead of moving it. What useful purpose does it really serve, if not to piss certain people off? Just trying to make a suggestion..

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". Sounds kinda familiar...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/ The court documents say the two men met about a month ago on the Internet and found common ground in their shared "white power" philosophy.

Credibility = zero

Not a black man in this Toronto incident: http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2...eese_081026.jpg An arrest warrant has been issued for Kyle Weese, 25. Link to news article

Even if its true, what conclusion should we draw from it, what should be done about it? It may be true that a gang war has developed, involving gangs of largely black youth. They may be small in number, compared to the overall black population but they commit alot of crimes. If they were gone, the number of crimes would drop dramatically. The problem is that based on this information, simple minded individuals would now go about in fear of all people who have dark skin. Even though, this gang that is causing so many problems could represent less than 1% of the black population. So there is clearly a problem with that logic, what it means to people who don't have a context to put it in. It has nothing to do with liberalism, its just a matter of understanding facts and what they mean, and preventing racists from using these facts wrongly, to instill fear in the less informed.

Of course the people willingly voted for him. But that is entirely beside the point here.

Further to what I am getting at, here is some info about an organization known as The International Republican Institute: "Founded in 1983, the International Republican Institute (IRI) is an organization, funded by United States government, that conducts international political programs, sometimes labeled 'democratization programs'. Initially known as the National Republican Institute for International Affairs, the IRI's stated mission is to expand what it interprets as freedom throughout the world." Creation of Right-wing political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...litical_parties Board of Directors: U.S. Senator John McCain, Chairman http://www.iri.org

Canadians love the liberal party and that is evident by their choice in voting for so many years. But why did the Liberals choose and continue to support such an obviously weak leader? Were there not better choices from the onset, and why even when the real problems with Dion began to show did they do nothing about it? Why is he still the leader even now... and why is there no one really of any charisma who has the ability to make the party a viable choice. It was obvious to many, from day one, that Dion is un-electable. It is also true that many of the Liberal party's policies, are in direct conflict with policies from the United States, epecially the Bush administration/ Republican policies. I always found it very puzzling and disturbing that when George Bush came to visit Canada in 2004, he wanter to meet privately with Stephen Harper even though Harper was not Prime Minister, but was leader of the Conservative Party. http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2...rper_060119.jpg U.S. President George W. Bush meets with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in this 2004 file photo. (CP / Charles Dharapak) Link to web page with this photo: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads= Ask yourselves the hard question, about the real nature of Canadian politics.

He changed the title of the thread, and the first post after he was proven wrong, thats what.

The same applied to alcohol prohibition in the 1920's, it empowered gangs who made huge profits in rum-running. "By the end of the decade Capone controlled all 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida. Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of prohibition." "At the end of Prohibition some supporters openly admitted its failure. A quote from a letter, written in 1932 by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states: When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_i...e_United_States Familiar, all too familiar.

And re-elected.

She's one more nail in John McCains coffin. "Et Tu, Brutus?"

"Hussein Obama is American, He was not born in Kenya but Hawaii" See, that's called learning. Stick around kid we will help you.

Must be "Operation October Surprise"

"Hussien Obama not American" His name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama II. Not "Hussien". Can't you get anything right? ---- "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children[2] in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Kenyan from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas." [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama [3] "Born in the U.S.A.". FactCheck

Starting to... but I'm old enough to generally know better. "If they want to elect a Muslim sympathizer what should I care right? They're only at war with them. A Muslim sympathizer with the launch codes to the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet." We are not at war with Muslims per se. Many muslim nations are friends of Canada. I think this is where your main confusion seems to come from. The vast majority of muslim people you meet in the street just want the same things you do, to raise their family in safety, to worship their god in privacy, and to mind their own business. Anyone who cannot mind their own business, who feels the need to force their views on others, be they white, black, christian or otherwise, will get vocal opposition from me. Thats what this country is all about, people living the way they want to under the rule of Canadian law, and minding their own frikkin business.

Our best are not all brain-drained... I am still here, and others who are also very talented in their field. But I concede that it was an insult when I used the word Bigot to describe your views, although I disagree with much of what you write and no moderator has contacted me, in the interest of being fair I will go back and change it. No need to be obnoxious when in Rome

You are wrong, quite simply you are wrong. I have confidence that the vast majority of Americans would vote on the issues and for the person/ party that they believe is best for their country. If a person of colour, or female gender is not the one who has the best to offer, the majority should not and will not vote for them. Unless they think like you, it seems. Then the wrong choice would be made, because its for the wrong reason. Then everyone will have big problems. To call it racist NOT to vote for a black man, is equally unfair, and childish I might add. Just trying to educate ya some more

But you were not, hmm?

Perhaps she's a little too rogue even for the "Maverick". Eventually the chickens all come home baby. I've said this once before about John McCain- Beware a drowning man

Yes, and how nice that we will allow her to come here and make her homeland, in the security of our country.