CANADIEN

Read lictor's ravings long enough, and you will know what his conclusions are. He has made it clear that he considers Blacks to be genetically inferiors, and that races should be separated. Everything else he says is based on that premise.

It was both. A murderer is, in essence a coward. But then, what would I know, some here think I am a murderer appeaser just for thinking something like that.

Gandhi's opposition to violence of any kind was well known. He was naive in believeing that non-violence was the response to Hitler, but that's not the same as support for him. It is little known, but Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler, one in August 1939 asking him to do everything possible to avoid the war, the other in December 1941 asking him to stop the war and embrance Gandhian non-violence. That he sent those letters proves how little Gnadhi understood of the real evil of Hitler and his plans. But both his appeals to Hitler and his refusal to condone the war against Germany were consistent with his total opposition to any violence. And in his second letter, he makes it very clear that he and his followers cannot wish Germany's victory.

It takes a coward to murder people, no matter how they do it.

Just months ago, he wasn't President yet.

The Republicans won't impeach him on the birthers issue. They are not into political suicide.

83% of independants believe that Obama was born in the U.S. That's the number any Republican who thinks about using the birther card should worry about.

Don't you dare claim economic conditions may be a factor in violence. Or to talk about how non-whiite criminals tend to get harsher sentence for similar crimes. And don't even consider pointing out that most non-whites are NOT criminals. That's not the point. the victims either are not the point. Making sure that everyone knows that non-Whites are dangerous, each and everyone of them.

Am I the only one who has noticed that you usually do not say where your Steyn's quotes came from? By the way, this is not about trying to be clever. It's about the fact that, on September 12, Mark Steyn thought, and wrote, that there was nothing cowardly about highjacking aurplanes and committing terrorist acts. He couldn't have been more wrong. Of course, he is a well known hatemonger, so that will absolve him in your mind. September 12 2001 was the first time I've read anything by Mark Steyn. After that one, it was the last. Some with you... ignored.

I don't particularly like him, but feel free to be intellectually dishonest as usual. Looking at yourself in the mirror, again? I didn't. First Black man elected Presdient in the US. Never happened before. Pretty unique, no matter how good or bad people think it is.

Want to swap Steyn's quotes?

Yes, I admit it. I shamelessly steal it from you.

One less man of violence on the streets, any street, is a good thing. But nurder? BTW, congratulation wulf42. You just proved yourself to be no better, when it comes to your view of other human beings, than radicals of any stripe.

I cannot believe what I am reading here. Equating Gandhi and Hamas? Not surprisingly, nobody says what they thing Gandhi should have done. Well... we already know there are some who believe he should just had done nothing and be countent to see his land occupied by a foreign power because hey, the British were civilized. Don't bother responding anyone. :angry: :angry: :angry:

The wuote is from his entry in Wikipedia. The full article appeared on his Web site in 2005. Not good enough for you? Coming from you, I don't care. Mark Steyn is not the topic of this thread.

Opinion, which he passes as fact (now, masquerating may be, I admit, a bit of a strong word). I am not finding fault with him for doing it. All of us do one time or another. I find it ironic, though, that he laments something that he does as being a problem.

Until 2000, the usual rule was that people could not become a German citizen if not born of a German citizen. In the Netherlands, the first groups of Muslim immigrants, up to 1970's, were usually classified as temporary workers, meaning they were expected to leave when they were no longer needed. Just two examples... not unique. Immigration is not the reason for the growth of far-right extremist groups... it's the excuse.

You read individual minds? Why take the chance of closing the door to individuals who are willing to engage in dialog with our society? great idea. Let's show it to Evangelical Christian immigrants as well. You would not want to risk welcoming immigrants who does not share our culture and value, including tolerance. In fact, if you were an immigrant, I would suggest a special showing of the bit about men kissing. Must I conclude that Muslim immigrants in the 1850's would have integrated faster as well? Not to the people at time, and Irish terrorism (remember the Fenians?), Easter European support of Marxism, and Sicilian notions of honour were quite foreign to values of older stock Canadians.

It would be entirely fair. After all, I started long ago to point out that there were (and I'll add, still here0 differences betttwen some European socieities that are euqal, perhaps even bigger, than diifeerence between some of those societies and some Muslim societies. And it, is, or course, entierely ludicrous to point out that societies where the concept of "honour" justifies vilence against women share one characteristic with other societies where the concept of "honour" justifies violence against women.

Someone needs to tell you? I know and you know the hatred is evil, no matter whom it comes from. You know and I know one cannot logically claim that THE Muslims, each and everyone of them is hateful. You know and I know one cannot logically deny that hating goes hand in hand with belonging to the KKK. That's the difference. Period.

As I have said often on other threads, I do not get non-sense. Where did I say he was a liar? Let me check... nowhere...

Source? You'd blame a toothache on immigrants, but I digress. You seem to forget something else in that article:

You mwan I fail to hate him for the colour of his skin.. As I made clear often enough, I do not care about the colour of another person's skin. Oh well, we're all used to our intellectual dishonesty by now.

We have all seen it. People coming to work what a bad (I mean BAD) cold and giving it to the whole building. People who can barely function because of a migraine trying to put a day's work. People coming back too early after injuries or illness. All that because they are too afraid to be labelled as lazy, or even to be fired. Anybody think that's acceptable? Would they want to be around a guy who handles heavy machinery but is too sick to do it properly?

I'll be the first to admit that union benefits can be ridiculously generous. And to say the right to strike or lock-out in the public sector should be abolished. That being said, I will second tango and Argus word for word on this one. Even with excesses, unions are a fondamental part of a fair society.