PocketRocket

Bang-on the money, AUGUST. In fact, if I may expand, the same thought process evolved independantly in many areas. In pre-revolutionary France, the custom of powdering both faces and wigs was an offshoot of this attitude. In medieval Japan, same thing. Ladies of nobility powdered their faces, as did geisha, BTW. I recall from early high-school history lessons the white explorers in the south seas were seen as desirable because of their light skin-tones. But this is likely unrelated. They were probably simply considered "exotic" to the natives who had never seen white skin before. In England this "light-skin" rage was not as predominant as in France, but still, many of the nobility engaged in "powdering". Other countries in Europe held similar customs. Nobility who did not want to be mistaken for field-hands (like that was at all likely ) Now it's flip-flopped. A good tan is no longer seen as a sign of "lower class" status, because it is no longer equated with manual labour. Good thing, too. I always end each and every summer with a case of "trucker-tan". Left arm brown from the elbow down. The rest of me white as a sheet.

I can only partially agree with the humor value of that cited website. It is funny, but also sad. It's more of the same "with us or agin' us" mentality. I guess freedom of speech/thought/opinion is only valid when the opinions being expressed match those put forth by the extreme right

I see no reason to be proud of what is essentially an accident of birth. I am white. Had I been born to Black parents, I would, obviously, be Black. No reason to be proud of that, either. Again, accident of birth. To me, skin colour is irrelevant. Something that we are simply born with. Not something we've earned or worked for in any way. But I AM proud of my ancestors. They scraped, they worked, they dug themselves out a life on various farms in Northern Ontario. They passed on to me healthy genes. More directly, my parents passed on to me a good work ethic. They taught me to be responsible. They showed by example how to live with respect for myself and for others. I am proud of them for these and other reasons. Two weeks ago I drove past the old family homestead. The original farmhouse still stands, although it is now somewhat crooked. That house is over 200 years old. The farm still remains. The current owners raise bison. It was truly nice to see. Proud to be Canadian, Ontarian, and earning my own damn money

The scary thing is they're both driving the same car, whilst talking to each other on cells Seriously, I've seen people talking on cells who are driving perfectly well; aware of what is going on around them and responsive to it. I've seen others who completely lose their concentration while on the cell. But the latter are generally borderline-incompetent drivers to begin with. So, yeah, if you really REALLY have to talk on the phone, pull over in a parking lot or on the shoulder of the road. It's like that old drinking/driving tv spot; "The life you save may be mine", er, sorry, "YOUR OWN", yeah, that's it, "your own".

This particular tack always cracks me up. Like a tyrrany-minded government, with its virtual monopoly on sophisticated weaponry, is going to worry about a bunch of crochety duck hunters with .303's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Duck hunting with a .303???? Not bloody likely. Try a 12-gauge, full choke.

"Culling" would be a drastic solution. Personally, I have no taste for killing people to make room for other people. Unfortunately for all, I believe the final solution shall be Malthusian. Dr Malthus always gets the last laugh, sadly.

Do that for a couple days in July when the temperature is at it's hottest, and every New Yorker who can't use his/her air-conditioner would be screaming I love it.

ARGUS: Just tried a GOOGLE search on street crime occurences ratio by race. Gotta admit, you're right on the mark there. Pretty tough to find stats for this in Canada.

ARGUS: That was my post. You responded with: My impression of Montreal was that the majority of gun-related problems were a result of the Hell's Angels/Rock Machine biker war (neither of which have a majority membership which is either Black or Oriental). However I readily acknowledge that I may be mistaken. I wasn't aware of this. Granted. I would ask you to cite, but if it never made it into the media, then it's hard to prove either way. For sake of this discussion, I'll take it as granted. Why not??? It would be a perfect world if everyone spent all there leisure time thinking up ways to satisfy me, and only me Possibly. Possibly not. Most people hear about street crime on whatever newscast they watch/hear. Much street crime is never reported. A brawl outside a bar is oftern over and done with before police arrive, and is never heard of except by those direct witnesses. Beatings by gangs in which no one is killed are often the same. Who knows how much crime goes unreported??? No one, for exactly that reason; it's not reported. But your points are well taken. My asking you to cite sources was not simply to be a smart-ass, it was simply because I dislike sweeping generalizations. But, as I said, I understand the points you were making.

As KIMMY so sagely and succinctly pointed out, this is a discussion forum. That means we discuss, or "talk about" things. Things like the topic of whatever thread we happen to be posting in. If YOU want to change the rules of the forum to suit your short-sighted and single-minded agenda, then start your own forum website. GET IT? Otherwise, be prepared to stand up for the viewpoint you are posting, and to defend it by answering questions which may be counter to yours. Failing to do so simply shows a weakness of either mind, or position. You choose which weakness you're exhibiting by this behaviour.

KIMMY and ARGUS: With all due respect, I was the one who first asked ARGUS to support his claims. But here is the sentence I asked to be backed up...... You have clearly shown that Black-on-Black violence is quite high in Toronto, but that was not the initial claim you made. If you had specified Toronto in your original statement, I would not have bothered asking you to suport the claim. But if you look at the quote I provided, the claim is made about violence in Canada. So, in context, what I was asking was for you to support your claim that most gun violence in Canada is black-black followed by asian-asian.

True, but at the time it was produced and released, it was made out to be factual. It actually had a lot of influence on both the general public who saw the movie, and also the law-makers of the time, none of whom knew the slightest thing about pot, and all of whom were influenced by it's blatantly false message. If you look into your history on the evolution of pot laws, you'll find the financier of the movie was also behind the movement to ban pot, even though he too knew little or nothing about weed.

I have to agree with this. The radio in my van stays tuned to CBC, so whenever I'm in transit, that's what I'm listening to. Although I have to say there was some interesting international stuff being broadcast last night. But I still miss "As It Happens" and a few other programs.

It seems Conservatives are not the only ones who find a simple "yes or no" impossible. In your other "yes or no" thread, I answered your question, in the way you asked, then went on to pose a similar "yes or no" question to you. You have failed to respond to that question in the way you yourself are demanding of others. Until you do, I see no reason why anyone should pander to your loaded questions. Please show some credibility and at least play by the rules of your own game. BTW, just for the record, I am NOT a conservative, so please do not try to cast party-related aspersions at me.

First, I answered your question with a "YES". Or maybe you didn't catch that. Then I went on to answer another question with another "YES". Perhaps you missed that also. Then I posed two questions to you, which you have still failed to address. I fulfilled your request, ie; answering with a simple yes or no. You have still failed to answer mine, other than dithering and squirming your way out of giving an answer. You accuse only right-wingers of this tactic. Pot calling kettle black????

Well, THE LIB, I know you're still here right now, and you're still posting like crazy in this forum. But you're not so quick to respond to this. I guess you don't like answering a question that puts you in a lose-lose situation. Perhaps you should keep that in mind in the future before setting up such questions.

The really sad thing is that a lot of Canadians see it that way.

The problem with this thread, and so many others, is that instead of opening up a political issue for discussion, it is simply attacking a large segment of the people on this "discussion" forum under the thin guise of political discussion. If I may answer the thread-opening question; YES. If I may also answer the question posed in the second post; YES. The Conservatives brought in the GST, which I am not crazy about, but at least they did so openly and honestly. The Liberals promised to get rid of it if they were voted in. Well, they've been in for what, 14 years now??? Not seeing much progress on that front. So, THE LIBERAL, to put your own question back to you with a twist, please answer my following question without any riders, simply answer "A" or "B". What is worse; A )) someone who makes unpopular decisions, and does so honestly, or B )) someone who breaks their promises to a nation for political gain???

Whatever

A majority government does no one any good. It leaves the party in power unchecked if they make foolish decisions. I would rather see a strong and respected leader for the CP, and the same for the LIBS. As someone who has voted both ways over the past 28 years, it would be nice to actually have to consider my options rather than only have 1 obvious choice.

I find it interesting, and indicative of something (I'm not sure what), that there is no option to vote "no". Personally, I'd rather put up with someone who posts to much, than someone who is too quick with comments like "asshat" or "dickhead" or "moron", or yes, even "fascist". Comments like those lead to flame wars which do a hell of a lot more damage to the level of discourse than someone who posts his views repeatedly.

So if you deem the traffic law that says you need to actually stop at stop signs to be immoral, then it's ok to disobey it? You are then a martyr? I think even you yourself would agree that there's a big difference between simple traffic signs and laws that are intended to enforce moralistic viewpoints. So how do you come about achieving consensus??? How was consensus achieved to overturn the prohibition??? Basically, a large portion of the population kept on drinking bootleg liquor. Many people got rich peddling this liquor. Many got killed in the same trade. I think the parallels are obvious. A law will only be overturned if it is challenged, both in the courtrom, and in the court of public opinion. When you consider the fact that anti-pot laws are the direct result of ignorance and misinformation which were combined with some serious financial capital to spread innacurate propaganda about the substance several decades ago, and the popular myths resulting from said propaganda have been perpetuated by government ever since, then it can definitely be argued that current anti-pot laws are as much of a sham as was the prohibition. Perhaps moreso. Do a Google search on the history of anti-pot laws, and how they came into being. You'll be surprised. The same facts can be used to argue against your "not a basic right" standpoint thusly; Do we have a right to know the truth about WHY something is illegal???? If so, then that right has long been withheld from us. Secondly, in the privacy of our own home, do we have a right to avail ourselves of mild intoxocants if we so choose??? If so, then that right too has been trampled twofold both by denying us the right to use said mild intoxicant, and by justifying the ban with falsehoods. You are saying that we should obey all laws blindly until those we disagree with have been changed. History shows that undesireable laws are changed by activism. Myself??? I choose another alternative. The eleventh commandment: "Don't get caught".

Bile is not necessary. Facts are all that is required. The simple fact of the matter is that the USA is doing what they want, simply because they can get away with it. Can't blame them for refusing to see that in this matter they're in the wrong. When you're the biggest, toughest, and richest, kid on the street, often you feel that this gives you the "right" to impose your will on others. But the words "retroactive, with compound interest" has a nice ring to it. Doubt we'll ever see it happen, though. The USA is simply playing fast and loose with the NAFTA guidelines that they themselves helped to draw up, and will continue to do so as long as they feel they can get away with it. Gee, can we think of anyone else inrecent times who played fast and loose with some rules, until he got spanked out of power??? Unfortunately, because this has a negative impact on Canada only, it's doubtful that there will be any "coalition of the willing" to help put a stop to it.

These are serious claims. Please cite a site to back up all three. Another problem is mail-order sales via internet. Perhaps we should be asking the FBI to arrest gun dealers who sell via internet, and then request extradition to Canada to be tried here. If it's good enough for Marc Emery.....

Sorta sounds like the NAACP in the States, or the First Nations Peoples here in Canada. Or people who were "touched" by priests as kids, or just about anyone who feels their rights have been trampled underfoot in the past. All that being said, I have to disagree and say I don't think Gays a group are looking for "retribution" so much as just getting the rights they are entitled to as citizens. After all, we haven't heard of any class-action suits by the Gay community against the government or any major corporations.