Shwa

So are you saying that an employee of the government getting supervision and evaluation in the official language of their choice is purely 'political' or done for 'political' reasons' and is thus causes unfairness? You know Argus, I get a sense that you are fully capable of understanding how the current bureacracy works and for what reasons some things are as they are. However, by saying, on the one hand, citizens should get get government services in the official language of their choice, but on the other hand saying employees delivering those services should not get government services in the language of their choice well, that is stretching things a wee bit thin don't you think? OK, so let's assume for a minute that it is unfair that there is so much unnecessary bilingualism at HQ. Then what is your design for an apolitical solution to this conundrum?

Not only were the SS crushed by a superior multi-cultural force, it appears that when it got too much for them they fled Germany. Nobody fears cowards who run with their tails between their legs such as "feared" SS.

You know perfectly well what I mean by multi-cultural allies, those folks of many languages and cultures that crushed the Nazis. Since are the one claiming that multi-cultural is bad, you look like a reichtard by invoking the concept to talk about your beloved loser Nazis. Ooooo, now you are a forum etiquette Nazi too! LOFL!

And why is the designation of blingualism for certain positions written into those qualifications in the first place? Any idea?

But your questions weren't about being force to join unions, they were about restricting what unions could do which, to me, could raise quite a few Charter questions about the fundamental freedoms regarding freedom of conscience, thought, belief or opinion: Now if you want to throw the 'forced into a union' red herring on the trail, that is fine. But my question this stands with regard to the OP.

The Brits were able to "keep their cool" because of superior organization, including beneficial relationships with other nations, to form a multi-cultural allied force that overran the Germans, carved up the country and annihilating the Nazis; and then reconciling the German people to the British superiority of organization to make them what they are today. Who cares what the US was in for, they were obviously organized enough to achieve their objectives and the same claim cannot be said for the Nazis.

One would think a brilliant legal jurist would be smart enough to apply for the job while possessing the necessary qualifications rather than giving up halfway through the process and then blaming their failure to qualify on unfair hiring practices. One would hope so, you know, with them being a brilliant legal jurist and all...

Very interesting question Bonam. So then are you arguing that, when it comes to the subject of unions, "Funadmental Freedoms" in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should actually be more of a 'Fundamental-ish Sort of Freedoms? And if so, would you exempt banks from such "foreign policy" comments?

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were making this all up. So now that you have these "documented facts" would you mind sharing a link, or a book, study or report title or something please? Please do share... It appears you are well equipped to discuss things on non-sensical terms. This is like saying the world is rose coloured when wearing rose coloured glasses. In other words, is it possible that the country is normal and you are very, very "strange?"

Good gawd... Except the vastly superior Brits, who were more organized and used that superior organization to help crush the Nazis, slice up the Fatherland and occupy a good portion of it and then help set up a better organized government in the form of the Federal Republic. Heck the Brits even taught them to play proper football. That was my original counterpoint to our resident reichtard. Hard to stay "organized" when you are being annihilated eh? Annihilated again, I mean. No alternative endings required.

So on the one hand, the Nazis lost the war because they were outnumbered, but on the other hand they lost the war because Hitler didn't know how to control the army. And you are saying the head of the government liked to think he was something he was not. And you are arguing FOR an "extremely" organized government? How was their "organization" in May, 1945?

One would think an "organized government" wouldn't start another war with basically the same folk that kicked their arses a mere 21 years earlier and if they did, they would be "organized" enough to cope with a war on many fronts or ensure that the war didn't escalate to more than one front in the first place. They were as "organized" as their scatter-brained and panic stricken Fuhrer and degenerated more as the war moved along. However, my point works with timing in that just as Germany was being subjugated - again - by a superior group of multi-cutural allies, the German government collapsed into an example of the "least organized government."

Because they weren't organized enough to avoid being wholly conquered by a multi-cultural force called "The Allies."

No, it was as "bad" as "they" made it out "to be." How could it not be? I am not making the comparison, you are. All I am pointing out is that you cannot claim the higher ground when you are the one standing in the cesspool. And there is a latrine over your head. Nice reading comprehesion there frowline.

Isn't that what bars are for?

Rob Ford leads in mayor’s race, poll shows It seems the brave and chaste Knights in White Armour have fallen off their trusty steeds or ended up way "laid" at .

Why would they ask Pakistan when they can simply ask the USA! USA! USA! Like they always have when their Glorious Utopia goes into the crapper and they need someone to bail them out of the fine mess they get themselves into. I am sure if you prorated all the death and destruction from the two European "world" wars it would all work out to be somewhat equal to any other region on the planet. Not to mention all the poverty, disease, murder and total chaos that resulted from those two wars alone. And once Germany was conquered - again - by the Allies, the Nazis were the best example of the "least organized government." And let's not forget what happened to the Jewish Diaspora during the last "world" war in Europe. Hardly the standard of "civilization" the rest of the world looks to as an example of resolving things "successfully."

There are more fans of the soap opera 'Days of Our Lives' and even they have more power, money and property than all the skinheads in the world. National Socialism is effectively dead since it is an ideology without power. Heck, even Star Trek fans have more power than all the so-called National Socialist reichtards and there will be more Star Trek movies coming out in the future to appease their demands. Although I will admit, I am a little uncomfortable with the 'altered timeline' schtick. (get it? "schtick" ) Right, to start a war, one must actually declare a war as opposed to committing an act of war. You may wish to revisit your "middle school" and brush up on clues since you have appeared to lost a few.

Why 80, why not 30 like in Logan's Run? Keep the Younger Generation as the ONLY generation and voila! problems solved. It was also take care of overpopulation, pollution, global warming, overfishing and ecological extinction and it would also settle which decade had the best music! Your Lifelock is black Hardner, off to the Carousel you go...

Its good business sense, that's why. For the "humanitarian" reasons, extra cash can help pay for the things that are required for such unexpected disasters and they will go mostly to the people affected or to fund services that we will provide. I wouldn't doubt that it will go to pay some good salaries for Canadian aid workers, doctors, nurses or the Canadian manufacturers of aid related materials such a tents, portable hospitals, toilets, water purification systems, medicines, etc. But on the other side of things, all those nuclear and military areas means potential markets for Canadian equipment and expertise. 700,000 troops with a Canadian made doo-dad at a prime discount of rate $100.00 each works out to be a decent investment. As doo-dads go anyways. Probably 30 million is a drop in the bucket compared to how much money we do in business with Pakistan anyways.

Had you been following the line of questioning, then you would obviously know that we are talking about "these people" in reference to immigrants. And - as clearly pointed out - the specific examples show that indeed people - presumably immigrants - were being held "responsible for the "customs they support" through criminal charges. Or did you miss all of that and just want to argue?

So here is this confusion of meanings again: by saying "the daughters" and "parents" are you referring to ALL daughters and parents of a particular culture or are you referring to SOME daughters and parents of a particular culture? And what is that particular culture? It is almost as IF you are singling out a particular culture, but in a non-specific and general way. So I am wondering if you are capable of speaking plainly, or that you are accustomed to being completely obtuse.

I know about customs that you think are "savage" but I am trying to determine if you are referring to all "those people" as being complicit in those savage customs and therefore, when referring to "these people" you are referring to a particular people in general; or your reference to "these people" is actually a simple reference to people who are inclinded towards criminal acts. So, in effect, I am trying to simplify your statement. However, if you would like to come right out and say what you "mean" then it would be a lot easier to determine if your sense of irony is on target or not. I sense it isn't, but I think it is only fair to ask for a clarification, outside of two references to some sort of honour killing or an attempted honour killing.

And you might just get that since the Knights in White Armour are riding in now: Liberals scramble to help George Smitherman stop Rob Ford

So, hmmmm, hang on a sec. Is this the same "slaughter" that you mentioned earlier, or is there another honour killing that you were referring two, which would make that an example of "two" of "these people."