CANADIEN

Oh. we are talking about buying spark plugs? How silly of me. I thought we were talking about PEOPLE.

You are simply advocating that where an individual immigrant comes from should be more important than whether or not he/she is actually able to make it here. Then you turn around and claim "but I am not advocating changing our criteria" when flaws in your logic are pointed. Actually, you ARE advocating a change in criteria.

More important, let's see how many children in Canada do not even finish high school because half of their teachers have died of AIDS. How many children are forced to become child soldiers. How many women are raped by marauding soldiers. How many people die every year because of food shortages. Themn, let's prove that this is comparable to what is happening in Africa. after all, according to you that is, since welcoming more immigrants from Africa will make us like Africa, I am sure the evidence is already there, right?

Advocating for restaurants to change their practices is as much her business as it is anybody else's. I wouldn't believe that your hatred for her and her husband is so deep to you would be that oblivious to that simple of a fact. But then, coming from you, it does not come as a surprise at all.

Nice try. If Ignatieff past opinions he no longer holds are relevant, so are Harper's.

Indeed. After their history for most of the 70's. 80's and 90's, I would be very careful about admitting anyone from Northern Ireland, wouldn't you agree?

Don't blame me for following Scotty's logic, using his stats and finding the flaw. BTW, is it your argument that unless we get immigrants from white err I mean European countries, we will sink to the kind of living conditions encountered in Africa? Please feel free to provide your proof - I need the laugh.

Since the "Other Africa" category excludes Northern and Eastern africa, it is a logical conclusion that it refers to the Western and Southern part of the continent, isn't it? Now, since you admit to the possibility that immigrants of some African countries fare better than immigrants of some European country, we can of course count on you to change the title of your thread to "Should Canada direct more efforts into recruiting immigrants from Western and Northern Europe, the United States, and African countries (other than Northern and Eastern Africa)". right?

Never mind that they make a lot less than unionized workers, with fewer protection. Workers in all American states have the capacity to choose to work in an non-unionized workplace. To argue they are not free to work because there are unions is akin to the argument that the definition opposite-sex marriage ceased to exist the day same-sex marriage became legal. As for thuggery, workers in unionized environment has better protection against shady practices, intimidation, bullying, and violation of employment standards by their employer.

You make some good points. That being said, the numbers provided by Scotty do not lie. Immigrants from Africa (outside of Northern and Eastern Africa, that is), do better economically than immigrants from Italy and Poland, to name two European countries.

Interesting statistics are being provided. Now, I have made it clear in the past that what I consider important is EACH INDIVIDUAL capacity to find employment and his/her willingness to obey the laws of this country. But if we are to base the statistics provided as the mean (or sole) criteria of where we should get immigrants from, then I must come to the conclusion that we should take immigrants from Western and Southern Africa ahead of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, or Oceania. Since it's all about the stats, wouldn't you agree, Scotty?

Good point. I too have never understood why the likes of you feel the need to be and remain ignorant and bigoted. If you want us to believe the Muslims in Canada are to be considered would-be terrorists/enemies of the West/etc. etc. etc. until proven otherwise, you better come with something a lot better than "14% of them identify with the Toronto 18". Like actual proof that the other 86% do so as well.

Nice try. The issue is not whether or not one can justify delibarate targetting of civilians in some circumstances. It is that yout "Oh my, 14% of Canadian Muslims identify with the Toronto 18, so we should treat all Muslims as would-be terrorists until proven otherwise" has been debunked as the bigoted non-sense it is.

The one entertaining thing is your hatred of the Obama family. Don't worry, I do not think it's because of their skin colour. It is because they hold opinions to the left of Attila the Hun. There is nothing in Michelle Obama's initatives that smacks of government intervention or people being dictated what to do. Nothing. Nada. rien.

Careful. Some people could wrongly believe that you are criticising the morons err I mean protestors. Since they have a legal right to spew hatred err I mean voice their concerns, you cannot say anything bad about them.

I'll simply point out to a recent posting by bitsy. Some people deny who they are for part of their life, and realize who they are. How people deal with their sexual orientation is a matter of choice. The sexual orientation itself is not a matter of choice. BTW, here's a scientific discovery pointing in that direction: From the Deseret News, 1995Of course, you are free to argue that gay men alter there fingertips when they choose to become gay.

Let us know when you have something intelligent to offer, instead of this pile of garbage which would properly be called racist if we were talking about a person's skin colour. Long live the ignore button.

Yeah right. Which explains differences in brain structure. The CHOICE of an homosexual orientation causes the size of the suprachiasmic nucleus to change. Right. If this were the case, the number of gays and lesbians would be higher. Much higher. Also, the percentage of gay women in the population is similar to that of gay men, yet girls who are abused as children are in the vast majority of cases abused by men. Same as boys.

Once in a while, one reads or hear a statement that it can only lead to one self-question: "will I ever read/hear something that stupid ever again?" I am reading such a statement right now.

Oh, she went to court, claiming wrongful dismissal, and won? That's news to me and to most Canadians, including her I am sure.

Why? After all, it's true.

Thank you for admitting what a majority here have been saying all along... The Government of Canada does not belong to Harper.

In other words, it doesn't fit your blatant homophobia, so it is dismissed. By the way, you know what th meaning of theory is in science, don't you?

The only problem is with your interpretation, and the naked bigotry behind it. !4% of Canadian Muslims expresses support for extremist causes means that each and every Muslim in this country is to be considered a would be terrorist until proven otherwise. A majority of Americans believing that targetting civilians can be justified is a sign of sophistication. Excuse me while I laugh. And while I prepare myself for my next fit of laugher, which shall come when you make a fool of yourself by arguing that, since I don't share your islamophobia, I am either soft on terrorism or oblivious to the threat.

Never mind that the consensus amongst most scholars is that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. You HAVE to come with the simplistic and frankly quite ridiculous "show us the gene" argument. Actually learning about the research on that topic may not convince you, but hopefully you would at least come with an argument that doesn't sounds more and more absurd everytime one reads it.