CANADIEN

It is already a known fact that nobody and no law in Ontario or at the federal level is lmiting your choice to use either English or French. Hence, both languages are free-flowing. YOU are in favour of laws that would limit what languages citizens can use and when and how they can use it. Thanks for admitting that policies and practices that recognized an OFFICIAL status to French prior to Confederation were not racist. Of course, no body used to your writings will expect you to ever get a clue on the fact this undermines your claim that similar policies are racist today. The following exchange never took place? Emphasis on "until that time". Thanks for admitting that you want, to use your own words, racist language policies. And from what alternate universe does that Charter come form? Not from this one, that's for sure. Me too. Just tell me when you actually find some parts of the Charter that are racist.

Congratulations for the way you take three words out of context, twist them around, adn TRY to make it sound like I dislike democracy. Too bad (for you) that it will not work. Democracy (direct or representative) is the best societal government system (although I always chuckle at Churchill's quote about democracy being the worst system except for all othersthat has been tried). That being said, even democracy has its limits in the basic rights of the individuals. An decision, any act that goes against those rights is dictatorial in nature, regardless of how many people may support it. Interestingly, you choose to distort what I am arguing instead of trying to counter my argument. Usual tactics by som on the right. Better luck next time.

Don't tell any of us that. Tell it to the Federal Government. I would not want them wasting my tax money by asking the courts to overturn a .court ruling that never took place.

I do not know about what a Liberal would argue, but I am most certainly not advocating a dictatorship, left-wing or otherwise. On the other hand, you sound very much in favour of a dictatorship of the majority trampling on the rights of people. It's already a fair supposition that you see no problem with the fact Swiss women took longer to achieve voting rights because the (male) electorate didn't want it. But feel free anytime to defend it. If the issue of segregation had been decided by referendum, black men and women in Mississippi would likely still be seating at the back of the bus and drinking out of separate fountains. Up to the point when he started having them killed, most anti-jewish measures enacted by Hitler would have likely been supported by a majority of Germans had there been free democratic referendums. Any law, any act deny any essential right is disctatorial by nature, no matter how many people support it. More participation by citizens in the deicisions that affect them is a good thing. I draw the line at when it becomes a tool to deprive people of their rights.

There are referendums on so many things in Switzerland (I remember reading once about a local referendum on the amount of the allocation soldiers were to receive for cleaning their uniforms!) that the turn out on cantonal referendums is not much better than what we have on our lections. When overdone, referendums do not bring higher participation. .Besides, referendums are not always the best way to decide issues of public policies, especially when it comes to human rights. To use Switzerland's example, it was the last Western republic where women were granted the right to vote, after various attempts had been defeated in... yes, referendums.

Hwaii 5-0 had the greatest opening... The new one is not as good, but they retained the spirit of the original one. The Flinstones... a classic Law and order... elegant in its simplicity Bonanza... the music Star Trek Voyager... made me dream

I am still waiting for proof of the alleged GENOCIDE. You know, proof that there is a vast concerted INTENTIONAL plot to bring the end of the white race. Feel free to point out where I can find the minutes of the meetings, or the names of the conspirators. After all, even early 20th century anti-Semites had the `Protocols`, as much . a blatant forgery as it was. All you have is the ad nauseam repetion of the fact that the immigration policies of most countries have not joined the 21th century yet. Not even close to the start of the beginning of a shadow of a proof of a GENOCIDE. Of course, I do not expect you to be able to provide a proof of something that does not exist.

I won't claim to speak for other people, but my problem with justme's argument is not that he points out that Western countries are about the only ones with an open immigration policy. It is with is rambling that this constitute GENOCIDE against the white race. As for the emotion that claim eicits in me, it's the same kind I have when I go to YukYuk.

Who gave you the (false) impression that I thought you were talking about (non-existant) genocides? The same voices that tell you there is a genocide against white-skinned people? A clue to the clueless - I was making fun of you.

And so am I. I also want the Easter Bunny as President of the World...

It is because my reading skills are just fine that I know that what you post is laughable.

He's gonna get a cameo in a fiction TV series. Big deal... Will be watching it though.

That's what you think. Actually, Trudeau was a 456 year old extra-terrestrial time-traveller.

Soo... whie-skinned couples having only a couple of children is proof of a (non-existant) genocide in one posting, and the wise thing to do in another. Make up your mind, will you?

They're in charge? That will be news for a lot of people, including themselves. And while we're on the subject of indians, you won't see a chief trying to replace his people with foreigners and making his tribe multicultural. He might lose his scalp if he did that! You're baited, and you swallow, hook and all.

In other words (YOUR words), genocide. Care to provide PROOF the intent is decline of the white population? More importantly, nobody (here at least) is saying it should not happen. Genocide implies intent. Feel free to try to prove your claim.

I am not a big fan of the porn industry either, but you got a point there. It is not logical to be against decriminalization of prostitution and not view the porn industry as a form of prostitution itself.

You lefty Seriously, same here.

yawn

Spare me the crocodile tears will you? Your first posting on this thread called proponents of decriminalization hypocrites, and insulted Canadian women. And that's not even the worst you had written on this thread. YOU started things, don't come crying now. You claim to know my type? You don't know what my type is, and you certainly don't know what I think of people who would riot to prevent someone from speaking up (a bunch of losers, in case you wonder). One thing should be clear to you by now, though... I am the type who will call you a pathetic jerk when you act like a pathetic jerk... like in most of your postings on this thread.

Call me a prude, but I do not like the idea of prostitution being de-criminalized. Money for sex cheapens it. that being said, there is no doubt that a lot of the real dangers prostitutes face would decrease if prostitution was de-criminalized. And no, I don't see a lot of increase in the numbers of prostitutes as something likely to occur Unless we become like Amsterdam, a sex tourism hot spot. But I see little risk of that happening... once you got too many sex tourism magnets, they all cease being sex tourism magnets.

the site's moral authority? Nope, even though some will tell you that I think I am. As for being hospitable... The welcome fits your introduction.

As someone who has problems with the idea of legalized prostitution, I only only two words for the author of the following: GET LOST :angry: :angry: :angry:

I have been wondering that for ages.

I thought that (according to you) people had freely embraced the English language. make up your mind, will you?