ft.niagara

I do not find that objectionable either. Ni@@er is just a contraction of Negro. It is kind of hard to make a contraction out of Caucasian. How about Cuccan?

You are just too close to the issue.

I have been married for 20 years to someone who is not of my "race" (although I would argue we are both of the human race, skin colour is irrelevent). The "entire problem" is racist bigots who think that somehow their opinion that "races are not meant to live with each other" is meaningful. In nature you see different kinds of animals, squirrels, deer, bear, etc. which are the same but different. In nature, they seem to stay with their own. It is not to say they can not live together, but nature, and "meant" are somewhat the same thing. But, you can have a browning of the white, and a lightening of the black to a brown in which case "so what". It is ok for blacks to call each other ni@@er, but it is not ok for whites to do so. That is unacceptable. In fact I do not understand what is wrong with the term. Does it mean stupid black? Worthless black? Dirty black? Whitie is the comparable white term, but I do not find it offensive. If there was segregation, there would not be the opportunity to be offended.

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term. This is exactly the point. Even though you state it here, you seem to miss its importance. SSM legislation in Canada refers to the legal definition of marriage. It has no affect on the religious definition. Every religion is still free to practice marriage as it sees fit. All of the arguments about religious freedoms, etc. seem to miss this point. As I said before, it is the terminology which is the issue. The term "marriage". To some it is a sacriment (sacred) term, to others it is just a legal term. Its usage applied to or not to homosexual union only reflects whose sensabilities you wish to offend. Liberals wish to offend the conservative because that is their nature. As far as the religious definition, yes homosexuals can not be married in most Christian churches, and certainly not in Moslim ones. The churches where they can be married are just ones that were for sale.

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

A typical arguement, personally attack the other as unenlightened. I think the true arguement is the term "marriage". Some consider it a sacred term, but with the breakdown of the family, and legalized perversion, I guess it is no longer considered such to many. A term is just a term. Nothing to fight about really.

I agree. Marriage presumably requires sex. The lack of sex is a basis for divorce. Homosexual sex, at least between males REQUIRES anal sex. To some, this is disgusting. For female homosexuals, it REQUIRES dildo and vibrator play. To others, this might be disgusting. Neither play has any potential societal benefit except pleasure. In the thousands of years of humanity, there has never been a concept of legal marriage of homosexuals, yet in just ten or twenty years, it is a concept forced upon society by homosexuals not content with legal union. Further, why is it still illegal to marry a daughter, or poligamy, or age requirements....because there is not a large enough self interest group to promote it, yet it is really very similar to homosexual marriage because it is also a change in the concept in what constitutes marriage. Basicly, homosexual marriage is a joke, and will always be one. It is an emperors cloths sort of joke.

It is not the time to smash anything. The US has been neutered for another ten or twenty years by Iraq. By then who knows what will have happened. As far as Israel, there are spheres of influence. Call them circles. We have ours, China and Japan have theirs, Europe has theirs, and Iran and Syria have theirs. That circle includes Israel. We tried to help Israel by taking Iraq. Sorry, those crazy Moslims didn't cooperate. Israel is close to being on its own. As I said elsewhere, no Moslim can convert. no Moslim controled land can convert. They are still fighting the crusades, and they love to retell the story of their eventual victories. They are reliving a dream. And yes, they would love to take over the world, but it is a bit bigger than Israel. They will be happy to start there.

Well said. The Jacksons and Sharptons are just waiting to jump on these things to inflate themselves. They are available for confessions, repentance, and restoration to humanity. In the mean time the house is burning meaning it is hip for negros to use the n word.

Guns are a high value added product, and just like everything else, if there is a market, someone will be there to fill it. Of course guns are lousy workers silly, in fact they are not workers at all. Nothing is perfect just doesn't cut it when it comes to organized crime. There is in fact no excuse for it with todays ability to do background checks, and the like.

Not self importance, I just want to catch your three and one half months worth of postings. You are the king of the one sentance posts.

Not people, a human body part.

Jefferiah, I agree. The land will always be there. However, who controls it has changed numberous times over the centuries. Islim is a crazy religion, with alot of inbred crazy thoughts. Time is on their side. Birthrate. Nuclear weapons. Suicide bombers.

Perhaps Remiel, your gun could use a tuneup, I mean checkup.

LOL. A gang is a mo-ped. HEHEHE. Funny looking mo-ped. Silly fellow.

Quite obvious Higgly wishes to divert any criticism of immigrant Canadians be it criminal asians to terrorist Moslims onto the US. He is a one song juke box.

Do you think that if gun making became illegal, the Asian mafia would disappear from the Canadian Streets? Asian gangs would be selling asian guns in addition to drugs. Canada has let in alot of unsavory characters, that is the issue.

The problem is the Jews can not mantain their little strip of land without a guarantee by other countries. Fact, the Jewish people gained the land through some purchase, some terrorism, and some military actions. Fact, Islim forbids the conversion of a Moslim to another religion. Penelty is death. Fact, Islim also forbids the removal of terrority from Moslim control to another religion control. Fact, the west, including Canada is involved in a 21 century crusade, and you know what happened the last time there was a crusade. It only took about 200 years for that land to be reclaimed. So far, it has only been about sixty. In about another hundred and fifty, maybe sooner, good bye Israel.

And your point is??? I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived. Wow, "contrived" ... you must be like one of those social-critic-mimestripetshirtwearing-poet-cool guys - form the soda parlour huh??? Sorry to come off like a jerk but that whole "... identity is so ~like~ contrived dude!" is so much hipster crap!! the question is what do you mean when you say Canadian identity (including its weaknesses) And what do ya mean when you say 'contrived' with respect to any 'new world' nation?? exactly? I don't know what he means. Ask Jerry. But, I think that Jerry simply meant that an English speaking country, next to another English speaking country ten times its size, is in search of an identity. That identity may in truth be superficial and superfulous to include everything from spelling, to measurement, to political position, to eh. The reference to strength of Canadian identity, and turban clad RCMP would be that Canada attempting to accomodate all, as exemplified by the Quebec "nation" accomodation, really has a weak, or at least changing identity. It is being shaped, rather than doing the shaping. Your reference to Canada as a 'new world' nation probably means you recognize this also. At least, I think Jerry may have meant something like that.

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people. It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere. IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures? Great Questions. In Other Words, one gets the notion that nobody knows what the other is talking about.

And your point is??? I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived.

Methinks you are having a problem with the concept of satire. It's actually an anti-Muslim movie, if anything. Have you seen it? I do not think it had its intended effect then.

I just saw the movie Borat. Another head scratcher. The comedian who plays Borat is named Cohen. I presume he is Jewish, yet it is the most antiJewish movie I have ever seen. The movie makers deflect the criticism by saying they are satarizing antisemitism. How is the running of the Jew satire? The female Jew lays an egg, and the towns people have to smash it before it hatches. And more......

I doubt that the gays of the world would agree to a 1 percent representation of their presence, they would argue a ten percent. Similar to left hand right hand ratio.