Gov't Funded Course in Sharia Law

[Kanadischer]

You are mistaken in thinking that " your " way of life is the same as the " Canadian " way of life.

What do you know about "my" way of life? You don't see my daily routine, or the way I raise my family. You are making assumptions based on a 5-lined comment. I am far more Canadian than you are if you think my post was not "Canadian". There is a difference however; I am not a modern Canadian, I am a traditional Canadian. I don't believe in this multicultural bull crap which is being pressed on us, and I believe in rights and privileges for Canadians before anyone else. Unlike the majority of the country, I do not bend over backwards to prove I'm not a racist, hate-mongering xenophobe. I let people think what they wish of my views, and leave it at that.

I'd like to ask you a question. Was this country founded on Islam? Was it built by Muslims? Was our justice system created under Sharia law? No it was not, therefore this country is not meant to be a multicultural shithole. The only immigrant who I can stand is the Japanese. They do not press their religion and culture on others, and live a quiet lifestyle.

[Remiel]

There is a difference however; I am not a modern Canadian, I am a traditional Canadian.

You did not make this distinction when stating what Muslims were compatible with. Or are " modern Canadians " not really " Canadian " to you?

[Michael Hardner]

I do not bend over backwards to prove I'm not a racist, hate-mongering xenophobe....

The only immigrant who I can stand is the Japanese. They do not press their religion and culture on others, and live a quiet lifestyle.

It doesn't sound like you could bend far enough backwards to prove that. You're not typically Canadian, I think, because most Canadians can stand immigrants.

[Kanadischer]

You did not make this distinction when stating what Muslims were compatible with. Or are " modern Canadians " not really " Canadian " to you?

Well, the term "Canadian" has most certainly changed. It's not what it was 100 years ago. Nowadays, when a foreigner thinks of a "Canadian", they think of a self-hating, multicultural-loving idiot who will do anything to comfort "newcomers"; even if it means the destruction of his/her own culture and traditions. After the first world war, we Canadians had a solid reputation for "getting the job done" and not taking any crap from anyone. We were practically a sovereign country after we received our own signature on the treaty of Versailles. We were the only British Colony who had this privilege.

It doesn't sound like you could bend far enough backwards to prove that. You're not typically Canadian, I think, because most Canadians can stand immigrants.

You're right, I can't bend that far, because I was born with a spine.

[Remiel]

Nowadays, when a foreigner thinks of a "Canadian", they think of a self-hating, multicultural-loving idiot who will do anything to comfort "newcomers"; even if it means the destruction of his/her own culture and traditions.

And how does this compare, say, to what they think of Germans of the 30s and 40s?

Also, nice contradiction. Suddenly you care what foreigners think when trying to push a (mistaken) premise to help your (flawed) argument.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, the term "Canadian" has most certainly changed. It's not what it was 100 years ago. Nowadays, when a foreigner thinks of a "Canadian", they think of a self-hating, multicultural-loving idiot who will do anything to comfort "newcomers";

So Canadian means 'British' to you, it sounds like.

It's honest of you to be open about your feelings, but you won't find many who support you, especially when you frame your points in such xenophobic language.

Like in the US, there is a sizeable business case for immigration and Conservatives do support business and vice-versa.

[Kanadischer]

And how does this compare, say, to what they think of Germans of the 30s and 40s?

Also, nice contradiction. Suddenly you care what foreigners think when trying to push a (mistaken) premise to help your (flawed) argument.

What flawed argument? I don't see a single flaw in my post whatsoever. I was using our new image as an example that our country is changing, and not for the better. You've got no point to prove and you're picking flaws in my posts rather than bringing up facts, or your own opinion. Just remember, you can't win a battle of opinions.

So Canadian means 'British' to you, it sounds like.

It's honest of you to be open about your feelings, but you won't find many who support you, especially when you frame your points in such xenophobic language.

Like in the US, there is a sizeable business case for immigration and Conservatives do support business and vice-versa.

I don't look for people to support me, I look for people to recognize me. I look for people to notice my presence and so that the select few people who can see through the Horrors of Multiculturalism have someone else to speak with. It's not like I am the only right winger on this forum. Heck, my views are in-line with a large majority of Conservatives.

I don't see Canada as British per se, but rather European. It was not just the British who helped build this wonderful nation; it was the French as well, along with many many Germans, among others.

[Kanadischer]

Computer error, posted the same message twice.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Kanadischer

[Michael Hardner]

I don't look for people to support me, I look for people to recognize me. I look for people to notice my presence and so that the select few people who can see through the Horrors of Multiculturalism have someone else to speak with. It's not like I am the only right winger on this forum. Heck, my views are in-line with a large majority of Conservatives.

I don't think that they are. As I have pointed out, business benefits from growth.

As to the 'Horrors of Multiculturalism', they seem to consist of you not liking immigrants, or change.

I don't see Canada as British per se, but rather European. It was not just the British who helped build this wonderful nation; it was the French as well, along with many many Germans, among others.

What is it about Europeans that you like, versus immigrants from other countries ? Certainly Europe provides immigrants with different religions, cultures and so on. There must surely be something that Europeans have in common that appeals to you ?

[M.Dancer]

What is it about Europeans that you like, versus immigrants from other countries ? Certainly Europe provides immigrants with different religions, cultures and so on. There must surely be something that Europeans have in common that appeals to you ?

Well there's Croatian and Serbian ethnic cleansing, Scicilian criminality, Greek indolence, Irish alcoholism, Scandenavian emotional frigidness, French arrogance, british engineering, Dutch courage ...what's not to like?

[Kanadischer]

I don't think that they are. As I have pointed out, business benefits from growth.

As to the 'Horrors of Multiculturalism', they seem to consist of you not liking immigrants, or change.

What is it about Europeans that you like, versus immigrants from other countries ? Certainly Europe provides immigrants with different religions, cultures and so on. There must surely be something that Europeans have in common that appeals to you ?

The common thing Europeans have, is that they know how to run a country. If you look at Africa, the Middle-East, and many Asian countries; they have the highest poverty rates, the highest murder rates, the most wars, the least organized government, the least money, and what else? They need the most help from us. You don't see a European country asking for "aid" from Pakistan, do you?

Europeans have proven themselves able to rule their countries, and run them very successfully. I admire how civilized Europeans are, and how not everything is resolved with a machete to the fingers.

Well there's Croatian and Serbian ethnic cleansing, Scicilian criminality, Greek indolence, Irish alcoholism, Scandenavian emotional frigidness, French arrogance, british engineering, Dutch courage ...what's not to like?

That's about right

[Shwa]

The common thing Europeans have, is that they know how to run a country. If you look at Africa, the Middle-East, and many Asian countries; they have the highest poverty rates, the highest murder rates, the most wars, the least organized government, the least money, and what else? They need the most help from us. You don't see a European country asking for "aid" from Pakistan, do you?

Why would they ask Pakistan when they can simply ask the USA! USA! USA! Like they always have when their Glorious Utopia goes into the crapper and they need someone to bail them out of the fine mess they get themselves into.

I am sure if you prorated all the death and destruction from the two European "world" wars it would all work out to be somewhat equal to any other region on the planet. Not to mention all the poverty, disease, murder and total chaos that resulted from those two wars alone. And once Germany was conquered - again - by the Allies, the Nazis were the best example of the "least organized government."

Europeans have proven themselves able to rule their countries, and run them very successfully. I admire how civilized Europeans are, and how not everything is resolved with a machete to the fingers.

And let's not forget what happened to the Jewish Diaspora during the last "world" war in Europe. Hardly the standard of "civilization" the rest of the world looks to as an example of resolving things "successfully."

[Kanadischer]

Why would they ask Pakistan when they can simply ask the USA! USA! USA! Like they always have when their Glorious Utopia goes into the crapper and they need someone to bail them out of the fine mess they get themselves into.

I am sure if you prorated all the death and destruction from the two European "world" wars it would all work out to be somewhat equal to any other region on the planet. Not to mention all the poverty, disease, murder and total chaos that resulted from those two wars alone. And once Germany was conquered - again - by the Allies, the Nazis were the best example of the "least organized government."

And let's not forget what happened to the Jewish Diaspora during the last "world" war in Europe. Hardly the standard of "civilization" the rest of the world looks to as an example of resolving things "successfully."

I don't now what's funnier, the fact that you think the Holocaust was as bad as they make it out to be, or the fact that you're trying to compare a Tribal Genocide versus a Racial one. The Jews were foreign invaders to Europe, excluding the Ashkenazi Jews who are converts, however their culture is foreign. Let's use Rwanda as an example. 800,000 dead in what? 3 months? Let's see how quickly we reach "6,000,000"! The fact that they were killing each other over "tribal" status is ridiculous and shows how uncivilized they are.

You honestly think that Nazi Germany had an unorganized government? Oh lordy... You obviously don't appreciate how much effort when into changing that country from the poorest country in the world, to the richest in such a short period of time. Organization was key. If it weren't for war, Germany, along with the rest of the world, would be National Socialist. Forget about trips to Mars in 10 years, we'd be vacationing on Mars by now! German technology was amazing, not to mention they knew how to keep an astounding economy.

[M.Dancer]

You honestly think that Nazi Germany had an unorganized government?

I don't know what's funnier..your parroting myths or you pretending not to be lictor....

The Nazi government was organized and hopelessly idiotic...mainly because nazis are darwinism personified...

[Guest TrueMetis]

The common thing Europeans have, is that they know how to run a country. If you look at Africa, the Middle-East, and many Asian countries; they have the highest poverty rates, the highest murder rates, the most wars, the least organized government, the least money, and what else? They need the most help from us. You don't see a European country asking for "aid" from Pakistan, do you?

You know what those countries have in common? Most of them where pretty much ruined by European Colonial interference.

I don't know what's funnier..your parroting myths or you pretending not to be lictor....

The Nazi government was organized and hopelessly idiotic...mainly because nazis are darwinism personified...

Social Darwinism personified, regular Darwinism personified is Capitalism.

[M.Dancer]

! German technology was amazing, not to mention they knew how to keep an astounding economy.

The nazi economy was a shambles. They had depleted their gold reserves in short order and focused on arms production. They had a huge trade imbalance that could not be rectified because they had nothing to trade and they were in danger of food rationing because they could not afford to trade. Hitler's solution was war and the rape and pillage of his neighbours.

[M.Dancer]

At the same time, a ferocious economic policy battle was being waged over foreign exchange reserves: Should they be used to buy food imports or raw materials for armament production, the latter being Hitler's primary purpose since he first took office? Hitler appointed Hermann Goring (who knew less about economics than Hitler) to mediate between Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, who wanted to purchase raw materials for armaments, and Agriculture Minister Walther Darre, who wanted food to cover up his failed policies. Schacht, a social friend of Goring's, expected a rubber stamp in favor of raw materials for arms. To everyone's surprise, except Hitler's, Goring chose food, an answer that set Germany on the road to foreign conquest.

As Kershaw sees it, Hitler gave priority to food imports because the "immediate prime need was to avoid the damaging psychological effects of the only alternative: food rationing." But this decision, in turn, adversely affected German rearmament. "By early 1936," says Kershaw, "available supplies of raw materials for rearmament had shrunk to a precariously low level. Only one to two month supplies were left. Schacht demanded a slow down in the pace of rearmament...As Hitler entered his fourth year as Chancellor, the economic situation posed a real threat to rearmament plans. At the very time when international developments encouraged the most rapid expansion possible, the food crisis-and the social unrest in its turn-was sharply applying the brakes to it...Any slow down in rearmament...would inevitably bring increased unemployment in its train...(Hitler) saw this as all the more reason to hasten expansion to gain 'living-space.'"

In other words, if Hitler had to spend foreign exchange reserves for food to keep the people happy, he would have to get the raw materials for armaments by taking them. Otherwise, there would be more unemployment when the arms workers were laid off due to a lack of raw materials. Hitler knew he couldn't survive both food shortages and a resurgence of unemployment.

Commenting in early 1937 on Goring's Four Year Plan for economic self-sufficiency, Roberts had presciently predicted the inevitability of either war or Hitler's fall from power. " There are 34 vital materials without which a nation cannot live, and unfortunately, Germany is worse off than any other great state insofar as these are concerned," he observed. "Whereas the British Empire is largely dependent on outside sources for only nine of these, Germany has only two in ample quantities-potash and coal. That means she must turn to the foreigner for all of her supplies of 26 of these and for part of six more. Yet this is the Power that sees fit to launch a plan for complete self sufficiency. It is ludicrous, unless she looks forward to obtaining control of the vast raw materials of central Europe or the lands beyond the Ukraine by some adventurous foreign policy...That is (Hitler's) basic dilemma. If he persists in the (economic) policies he has enunciated, he plunges Europe into war; if he abandons them, he can no longer maintain his position within Germany."

It's not that Hitler lacked contrary advice. Kershaw tells us that in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler in October, 1935, "a devastating analysis of Germany's economic position." According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive-in his view at the root of the economic problems...If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936." But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Goring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.

Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Goring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs." That is, the problem is not my fault and the answer is war, not economic reform.

Hitler's fears of losing power were not without foundation. His great nemesis, the Soviet Union, found that out 50 years later. In the 1980's, it could not keep up with increased U.S. defense spending and sustain what William E. Odom in The Collapse of the Soviet Military (1998) terms "a permanent war economy" in which 20 to 40 percent of the gross domestic product went to the military. The Soviets faced the same choice as Hitler: economic reform or war? Thankfully, the Soviet leaders chose economic reform, even though it didn't save them or their regime. Freeing yourself from orthodox principles of economics can be a tricky thing.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/nazi.htm

[Moonlight Graham]

i may be taking a course about Islam this fall, and i'm sure it will deal with Sharia law. OMG!!!!!

[jbg]

Here ya go, we can now to to school to learn about Sharia Law. It seems that Sharia is becoming just another part of our pluralistic or multicultural society, so better get in on this and get learning ! #speechless-smiley-040#

The course isn't free, but all colleges are partially funded by the gov't - our tax dollars at work

Introduction to Islamic Finance & Investment

http://www.ontariolearn.com/index.php?page=course_1092

What's next, Introduction to How to Wear a Burkha :angry:

Count me in.

I'm a great admirer of Sharia, Arab and Muslim culture, learning and work ethic.

[Shwa]

I don't now what's funnier, the fact that you think the Holocaust was as bad as they make it out to be,

No, it was as "bad" as "they" made it out "to be." How could it not be?

or the fact that you're trying to compare a Tribal Genocide versus a Racial one. The Jews were foreign invaders to Europe, excluding the Ashkenazi Jews who are converts, however their culture is foreign. Let's use Rwanda as an example. 800,000 dead in what? 3 months? Let's see how quickly we reach "6,000,000"! The fact that they were killing each other over "tribal" status is ridiculous and shows how uncivilized they are.

I am not making the comparison, you are. All I am pointing out is that you cannot claim the higher ground when you are the one standing in the cesspool. And there is a latrine over your head.

You honestly think that Nazi Germany ...blah, blah, blah, ...to the richest in such a short period of ....blah, blah, blah... German technology was ...blah, blah, blah...an astounding economy.

And once Germany was conquered - again - by the Allies, the Nazis were the best example of the "least organized government."

Nice reading comprehesion there frowline.

[Bonam]

I don't now what's funnier, the fact that you think the Holocaust was as bad as they make it out to be, or the fact that you're trying to compare a Tribal Genocide versus a Racial one. The Jews were foreign invaders to Europe

WTF?

[Guest TrueMetis]

WTF?

I wonder if he denies aids and a round earth to.

[DogOnPorch]

WTF?

Kinda tipped his hand there.

[Kanadischer]

Since you knobs don't know how to use the multi-quote function, and/or can't write everything in one response because you're incapable of thinking, I'll reply those I feel worthy enough to reply to.

I don't know what's funnier..your parroting myths or you pretending not to be lictor....

The funny thing is, you're so sure that I am Lictor, yet you haven't asked him himself? How about running an extremely simple IP trace? Not sure how to do it? Look it up; takes a few minutes.

You know what those countries have in common? Most of them where pretty much ruined by European Colonial interference.

That's the excuse everyone uses. Even before we got there, we were lightyears ahead of their shitty technology. Heck, blacks think they "invented" peanut butter. Let me assure you, they were not the first people to come up with it, and peanut butter is a damn recipe, not an invention.

Nice reading comprehesion there frowline.

And yet your post still makes no sense. How did the Nazi's government prove to be unorganized after the war was over? That makes no sense. Keep trying.

[M.Dancer]

The kinderdrek is back....