CANADIEN

That I haven't commented on Obama's foot-in-the mouth incident does not mean that I jdon't know he made a fool of himself. I didn't think it was important enough to comment on. Nothing to with his politics, or the number reason why you hate him - the colour of skin. As for detracting for the subject, your piece of drivel about the U.S. being a nation of imbeciles had nothing to do with the topic at end, but hey, we've come to expect that from you.

I would argue that literacy would include the capacity to read a date, like 1999... the date of the article you post. Something recent, please?

Oh darn, now I cannot suggest you form your own country without being accused of wanting you dead.

The selling of lemonade by kids does not constitue a crime as defined in the criminal code.

faster than light travel? Who knows? A few months back, PBS had something on an experiment in which light was actually slowed.

I understand relativity... kind of. We could debate this for years and still fubd ways to claim both approaches are right in their own distict way or only the relativist approach is right.

Not one bit in this case.The KKK was not founded by people who decided to achieve white supremacy and then decided to use violence to achieve it. It was founded by people who decide to achieve white supremacy AND use violence. The KKK cannot be explained without this combination of the two, nor can its criminal nature be dismissed as being besides the point. He should know, considering how he masquerades his opinions as facts.

according to someone who believes the use of violence was not central to the creation and the nature of the KKK. The criminal behaviour was not besides the point, it was at the heart of what they did.

People who planned and committed one of the most vile crimes in history, and made their intention to do so crystal clear from the start were not criminals. What next? People who conspire to kill women and claim they do so to defend their honour are not a bunch of criminals because their "main goal" is to defend their honour?

Start thinking.

So now the Nazis were not a bunch of criminals... their goal was political.

The US Office of "Consular Affairs (correct me if I have the name wrong) has seen fit to warn people that the "certificate with footprints' will not be accept for the purpose of getting a passport.... Apparently, some people think it HAS legal value.

It used to be "most immigrants were Europeans". Now that it has been pointed that some European immigrants were from cultures with societal norms more akin tp the Middle East, it's Britons.. I should dig for statistics about crimes amongst past generations of Irish immigrants.

Using the past when trying to figure out what the future will be is actaully a lot more logically sound that ignoring the past because it does not fit one's prejudiced vision of the future. You have stats about the percentage of immigrants them and now? We are in 2009. Do you think that British immigrants in the 1850's would have not done the same if they have had satellite TVs and planes? Or is it a problem only if Muslims do it? How do you explain then cultural organizations, ethnic-based churches, separate banks, ethnic newspapers, ethnic neighbourhoods amongst past generations of immigrants? Those first generation immigrants were no less "foreigners", and perceived as such, than immigrants from today. You will of course serve us the "but they were Europeans" argument. German immigrants came from a society where one of the most horrible crimes in human history was committed. Jewish and Polish immigrants in the USA were demanding the the US enter WWI on the German side. Immigrants from eastern Europe were a dominant factor in the rise of communist-inspired labour union in Canada. Sicilian immigrants to Canada were carrying with them Church lesson about those evil Protestants damned to the eternal fire and a conception of honour that demanded that a rapist marries his victim - against her will if necessary. The "things were better then" argument ignores how things were then.

Of course, base on what I write here. I would identify myself with an idiot and a racist why... because of his skin colour?

Social inteaction and speaking to them. Coming from somebody who prides himself on wanting to have anything to do with them. My experience of interacting with some Muslims, of speaking with some Muslims, and of reading about Muslims who both refuse and want to integrate themselves and their identity as Muslims with the Canadian fabric has thought me that, like with any other group, the "one size fits all" mentality is non-sense. Good idea, let's ban women trying to flee Muslim countries. Or Egyptian Copts and Lebanese Maronites. Perhaps we should ban immigration from any country where the law still calls for lesser penalty for murder if it is committed by men against their wives (goodbye Columbia, Peru, Argentina), those where "honour" was the basis for societal acceptance of violence against women until not that long ago (no more Italians), and countries where some men will throw stones at women if they dare to go pray where they shouldn't (no immigration from Israel then). Or we can adopt a LOGICAL approach, once that is based on a core concept of our societies, that autonomy of the individual. We set the rules and the fundamental principles of our society clearly, and those INDIVIDUALS who have a problem with those can stay where they are.

Nice to know that next time white racists beat up a Black man, we can count on you, as a white man, to denounce that crime.

We shall of course ignore the fact that you have a problem with about anyone who happens to be different from you. White neighbourhood anyone?

A white supremacist group, whose objective and modus operandi is to use violence, is committing crimes as a SIDELINE?

A majority of Muslims wanted for them the same thing that other religious groups had already - arbitration mechanisms for civil ligations that would apply Sharia within the confines of Canadian laws. Whose word do you think had the most weight, by far, in orthodox Jewish arbitrations - man's or woman's? I am not in favour of religion-based arbitration mechanisms, but what is acceptable for others is acceptable for Muslims too, and what is unacceptable for any religious group is unacceptable for all. Also, although I do not remember all the details, polls of the Muslim community taken at the time of the Sharia controversy showed that support for the idea was stronger among the young (the most likely to search for the identity as Muslims and Canadians) and recent immigrants. Looks to me like those with a longer contact with Canadian society are more like to want at least some form of integration. If we look at Europe, we also other things that are very different from what we have in Canada. For starter, the policy of most European countires from the start has been to treat Muslim (and in general, non-European immigrants) like guest-workers as best, with virtually no possibility of joining the body politic by becoming citizens. Right-wing extremism, often violent, is another phenomenum far more present over there than here. Of course, violence and extremism are still unaceptable, no matter who commits it. But we are a different society. Results will most liekly be different.

Thank you for quoting me out of context. As my posting made clear, I was responding to someone's claim that the KKK is not a criminal organization.

Correction on your scenario. You're asked for two pieces of I.D. You provide your driver's license and your Health Card. The guy you deal with doesn't like you, and think you're a fraud anyway, so he says the driver's license is a forgery. You say that was renewed three weeks ago, but he tells you "I know you were wearing glasses ten years ago. I want the real driver's license, the one with the glasses". You say this is the document issued to you, with legal value. that's not enough, so he phones the licensing office. They tell him "yep, the photo we have on file from when he renowed his license shows him without glasses, and all the info is as stated on the license". To which the reply is "are you a judge or something, to claim that what you are is legit? You know nothing." PS: For Ontario residents. By law, nobody can ask you for your health card except for the purpose of delivering health-related services.

What is silly, or more exactly stupid, is the claim that a legal document is not legal enough because... a bunch of idiots cannot accept the facts recorded on it. Equally stupid is the claim that there has been no available verification. The document that was made public is IN ITSELF a verification of its contents, and now a high-ranked State official has confirmed that she had verified the original record personnally. Nobody needs to ridicule the birthers. They do it very well themselves.

Good question. The cetificate issued by the hospital with the footpppprints on it has no legal value. try sending that with an application for a US passportm and the application will be denied.

No. He has made public a certified copy of his birth records, and now the person whose sworn duty it is the administer the State's vital statistics system has confirmed that the record as maintained by her Department shows he was born in Hawaii. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that you will not find that information on ANY certied copy (called in Hawaii certifications of life birth). And that BY LAW the certified copy is proof of the registration of the birth. irrelevant. He was born in Hawaii Once again, he HAD produced a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED copy of the original record of his birth. So, here what would have happened had he decided not to defend himself against those lawsuits by the morons. - the morons: Your honour, please order the defendant to produce his birth certificate - Obama: Certainly. Here's a certfied copy issued by the State of Hawaii - the morons: that's not what we want. Your Honour, please order the defendant to produce his birth certificate - Hawaii's Department of Health: What we gave the defendend is a legally certified copy, and has probative - the morons: please order... - the Judge: According to Hawaiian law, what the defendant produced has probated value, and the State department of Health has confirmed this. But just to be sure... defendant, you are ordered to produce another copy of your birth record as certified by the State - Obama: Yes Your Honour. Here it is. - the morons: it is a forgery, we want to see the real record - the Judge: I am satisfied that I have before me a certied copy of the birth record of Barack H. Obama Jr. of the State of Hawaii. It proves conclusively that the defendant is a natural-born citizen of the United States. Case dismissed. - the morons: APPEAL! APPEAL! So, judicial suicide is not an apt description, I'll admit. But for Obama not to try to stop that circus dead in its track would have ended up costing double, would have cost the citizens of the State of Hawaii money better spent elsewwwwwhere, and would have tied up the court system for years for absolutely nothing. Anyways, in ALL cases, the judge has concluded that the suit had no standing. It was. Tthat you do not have the brains to understand it does not change that FACT. BTW, the chair of the Annenberg Foundation publicly supported MCCAIN during the election. ONCE AGAIN. The document he he publicly released TO THE WHOLE PLANET is cetified as a copy of the original record. Further, the person whose JOB it is to ensure the integrity of the vital statistic system of the State of Hawaii has taken the unprecedented step of publicly declaring that the record on file shows that he was born in Hawaii. That is more than sufficient proof, and enough to satisfy anyone with a functioning brain. That being siad, I am surprised that there has never veen a federal law requiring presidential candidates to submit proof that they meet the requirements set by the Constitution. But if there was one, what document do you think Obama would produce? The document issued to him by the State of Hawaii, that meets the standards agreed upon by the government of the United States and all 50 states... in other word, the SAME document he made publicly available. And if any federal agency were then to try to reject that perfectly legal document, they would then be dragged into court, not by Obama's lawyers, but by those of the state of Hawaii, probably joined by the lawyers for most of the other States. And the feds would probably lose, as the determination of what constitue a legal prood of birth is a state power. To those with a brain, the fact that judge after judge dismissed the cases is proof that they had no merit to start with. How he made the LEGAL document he received publicly available is irrelevant. The simple fact that it was issued to him proves that the information on it is as recorded in State record. Correction. The top state official in charge of the vital statistics system confirmed that there is a record of the birth of a Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu in 1961. That's the end of the story. Unless you want to argue that the State of hawaii, its officials and its vital statistics systtem are not to be trusted?