Doom and Gloom forecast for Canada

[Argus]

Is this a race to the bottom? I've generally been impressed with this site. This thread is degenerating, fast.

The thread died on the 16th. This is just back and forth banter between people who don't like each other.

[jdobbin]

Already did.

Don't feel like it.

Are you stalking me? Do I need to close my curtains when I undress?

You'll have to show me that post where you say got carried away and regreted it. You must have backed in that statement because it was likely smothered in a justification.

Just pointing out that you are a hypocrite when I see you reporting others to the moderator. You can't run away from your statements and then pretend others are in the wrong on other posts.

[jdobbin]

The thread died on the 16th. This is just back and forth banter between people who don't like each other.

True. I would like to see you banned from here.

[Leafless]

I am not suggesting anything. I am asking what you would suggest rather than repeat your senseless parrot type responses regarding not voting for Stephen Harper?

To keep repeating yourself illogically you know there is a problem and that problem cannot be resolved by conventional politics.

All I am saying is if you cannot offer alternative solutions please stop posting your repetitious illogical nonsense as you could then be considered the master and instigator of your own fate concerning insults directed at you.

I could not make heads of tails of your previous post about corrupt government because you said there was no legal way to deal with it. ? Elections are not a way to deal with it? Who is being illogical here? And who isn't offering alternative legal suggestions?

As for insults flying around, I'm taking responsibility for my part. I'm just confused by your post as to what legal and responsible means there are to provide a system that reflects your values.

Now you are being a hypocrite.

Normally elections are a legal way to deal with political issues. But if all major national federal parties are dealing basically or accepting the former Liberal legacy as raising no major objections to it then there is a problem.

Many Canadians already know there are major political issues not being dealt by any of the major federal parties. So voting just for the sake of voting is your solution!!

If you call this a legal and responsible system that reflect your values then you are part of the problem.

[mikedavid00]

The thread died on the 16th. This is just back and forth banter between people who don't like each other.

True. I would like to see you banned from here.

Yes. Ban people and control what they say because you don't particularly agree with their viewpoints. I backtracked and looked for the 'racist' comments and couldn't find anyhting of the sort.

You should respect a fellow Canadians right to have his own viewpoint.

If you want big brother to control what people say then move to Bangledesh or Sudan.

Respect others' wishes to feel how they do and welcome our free society.

[mikedavid00]

The Liberals and CBC have programmed you to here a stereotype and label it as racism. You're wrong there my friend. You are just a brainwashed victim of the CBC, Liberals and modern Universities.

It was his responses that are in violation of these boards. You can check back on the boards to see what those are.

Still, we do you feel you need big brother to censor people that don't agree with your viewpoints?

Has he admitted to anyone illegal like molestation of children?

All he's done is express his viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean he should be censored.

If you want big brother style censorship, move to any 3rd world country.

[jdobbin]

Still, we do you feel you need big brother to censor people that don't agree with your viewpoints?

Has he admitted to anyone illegal like molestation of children?

All he's done is express his viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean he should be censored.

If you want big brother style censorship, move to any 3rd world country.

Slander and libel laws are part of a democratic country. If I was to call you a molestor of children that could be a prosecutable offence. For this reason, boards like this often will ban someone to ensure they are not drawn into a larger legal battle. It isn't censorship.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can cry "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nor does it mean you can you can accuse someone verbally or in writing of something that violates slander or libel laws.

I wouldn't call you a pedophile and expect to call it freedom of speech. I suspect that you wouldn't do it either.

[jdobbin]

Yes. Ban people and control what they say because you don't particularly agree with their viewpoints. I backtracked and looked for the 'racist' comments and couldn't find anyhting of the sort.

You should respect a fellow Canadians right to have his own viewpoint.

If you want big brother to control what people say then move to Bangledesh or Sudan.

Respect others' wishes to feel how they do and welcome our free society.

It was calling someone a pedophile that crossed the line. Do you think it is okay to do that?

[jdobbin]

Now you are being a hypocrite.

Normally elections are a legal way to deal with political issues. But if all major national federal parties are dealing basically or accepting the former Liberal legacy as raising no major objections to it then there is a problem.

Many Canadians already know there are major political issues not being dealt by any of the major federal parties. So voting just for the sake of voting is your solution!!

If you call this a legal and responsible system that reflect your values then you are part of the problem.

Hypocrite? Now you you've really got me wondering what the heck you are getting at.

I'm all ears to hear your solution to the problems.

[Argus]

I wouldn't call you a pedophile and expect to call it freedom of speech. I suspect that you wouldn't do it either.

Would you call him a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a White Supremecist?

[jdobbin]

Would you call him a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a White Supremecist?

You can mention comments which you believe are racist but not Ku Klux Klan or White Supremacist unless they are are actually members or advocates of that. I regret my statement on that and won't be using them again. Can you say that you won't be doing that again?

You report other people. Why are your remarks aceptable?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Big brother is alive and well in Canada. The nanny state has relatives! Too much government, too much bureaucracy too little freedom and not enough democracy. We are taxed to death to cover debt and social programs. Unless of course you have enough money to buy so tax breaks.

[Leafless]

Hypocrite? Now you you've really got me wondering what the heck you are getting at.

I'm all ears to hear your solution to the problems.

You've been telling every one on this board not to vote for Harper if he doesn't hold the key to many important issue's in this country and advocating voting for someone else even though they are not advocating any action on many important issue's Canadians are faced with. So essentially your advocating voting as deaf, dumb and blind as politicians suggest discounting the existence of major problems.

But now since your dumbfounded and our asking me I will tell you.

Firstly you must make politicians fully aware that many Canadians are not satisfied with their leadership in certain areas.

Protest are a start. For instance have you ever seen a mass protest on parliament hill concerning our immigration policies and or our discriminating official bilingualism in the federal service? I haven't.

I mean how did Quebec go about getting themselves a multitude of policies that serves Quebec over the ROC?

[jdobbin]

You've been telling every one on this board not to vote for Harper if he doesn't hold the key to many important issue's in this country and advocating voting for someone else even though they are not advocating any action on many important issue's Canadians are faced with. So essentially your advocating voting as deaf, dumb and blind as politicians suggest discounting the existence of major problems.

But now since your dumbfounded and our asking me I will tell you.

Firstly you must make politicians fully aware that many Canadians are not satisfied with their leadership in certain areas.

Protest are a start. For instance have you ever seen a mass protest on parliament hill concerning our immigration policies and or our discriminating official bilingualism in the federal service? I haven't.

I mean how did Quebec go about getting themselves a multitude of policies that serves Quebec over the ROC?

What I said was to vote for someone else if they continued to do what you didn't want them to do. Failing that, I said run yourself. I applauded some of the people who said they might just do that. Ralph Klein, love him or hate him, ran for mayor of Calgary with basically no support against a system the apathetically re-elects mayors for life.

I ran myself years ago. I have lots of respect for people who run on their principles.

I'm all for protesting as well but as the NDP has found out over the years, you have to eventually put up or shut up. It means that if people start listening to you, you should be prepared to govern. Some in the NDP nationally don't seem comfortable with the idea of governing and continue to be a protest party.

I'm perfectly comfortable with your stand on protest as a political forum. It is a legitimate aspect of a democratic country. And as far as the immigration issue goes, you can take that issue publicly as a protest. However, if people start to listen to you, don't be surpised if they try to draft you to public office. It happened to Ralph Nader.

[Argus]

Would you call him a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a White Supremecist?

You can mention comments which you believe are racist but not Ku Klux Klan or White Supremacist unless they are are actually members or advocates of that. I regret my statement on that and won't be using them again. Can you say that you won't be doing that again?

You report other people. Why are your remarks aceptable?

I made clearly ridiculous accusations in response to your own ridiculous accusations. So what? As to why I report people, I've been reminded that rather than responding in kind to people who post ad hominems I should report them. My instincts and time on newsgroups tells me that I should point out how stupid they are in as sulferous a tone as I can. But I recognize that this can degenerate into pointless shouting and insults, and that rapidly gets tiresome. It also allows the kind of nut cases one finds on newsgroups to hang around, and there's just no point in even attempting to debate with such people.

[jdobbin]

I made clearly ridiculous accusations in response to your own ridiculous accusations. So what? As to why I report people, I've been reminded that rather than responding in kind to people who post ad hominems I should report them. My instincts and time on newsgroups tells me that I should point out how stupid they are in as sulferous a tone as I can. But I recognize that this can degenerate into pointless shouting and insults, and that rapidly gets tiresome. It also allows the kind of nut cases one finds on newsgroups to hang around, and there's just no point in even attempting to debate with such people.

A revelation at last. Perhaps if your own rhetoric and snideness was toned down, there might be some point at which debate could happen. You might even convince some people of your argument.

[Argus]

I made clearly ridiculous accusations in response to your own ridiculous accusations. So what? As to why I report people, I've been reminded that rather than responding in kind to people who post ad hominems I should report them. My instincts and time on newsgroups tells me that I should point out how stupid they are in as sulferous a tone as I can. But I recognize that this can degenerate into pointless shouting and insults, and that rapidly gets tiresome. It also allows the kind of nut cases one finds on newsgroups to hang around, and there's just no point in even attempting to debate with such people.

A revelation at last. Perhaps if your own rhetoric and snideness was toned down, there might be some point at which debate could happen. You might even convince some people of your argument.

I like my rhetoric, I sometimes even like to use provocative words to inspire debate. I've noticed that those with weak minds sometimes go into a tizzy when I do that. But that's not my problem. As for my snideness, it's generally aimed at those who richly deserve it. As I said, the thread was going along in a fairly civilized fashion until July 16th, when you and Kindred started jumping up and down and calling me names.

[jdobbin]

I like my rhetoric, I sometimes even like to use provocative words to inspire debate. I've noticed that those with weak minds sometimes go into a tizzy when I do that. But that's not my problem. As for my snideness, it's generally aimed at those who richly deserve it. As I said, the thread was going along in a fairly civilized fashion until July 16th, when you and Kindred started jumping up and down and calling me names.

There is one thing that make my blood boil is racism and intolerance or the hint that it is the motivation behind certain behaviour. You say you're not a racist. Fine.

If you want to comment on immigration issues, try not to target certain nationalities unless there is supported evidence that they pose certain challenges for Canada. And if they do pose challenges, offer some advice as to what that community or the country can do to remedy them.

I think back to the time the Hutterites came to Canada. They could not be more different from the rest of us in our lifestyle. But over time, they've adjusted, we've adjusted and they are part of the community in their own way.

[Argus]

There is one thing that make my blood boil is racism and intolerance or the hint that it is the motivation behind certain behaviour.

Oh good. I like to play with PC types. Heard the one about the Mexican the Pole and the Jew?

If you want to comment on immigration issues, try not to target certain nationalities unless there is supported evidence that they pose certain challenges for Canada.

That is generally what I do. Of course, if you consider "supported evidence" to include nothing more than government statistics, even when the government doesn't keep statistics, well, you're going to be disappointed. For example, no level of government has ever made any kind of report or comment related to the street shootings in Toronto. It was left to Macleans magaine, in an interview, to drop the interesting statement that 80% of the people involved were Jamaicans. But generally what people like to say when you mention disproportionate crime from the Black community, is that I have no statistics, no proof. Never mind that face after face in the newspaper is black, never mind personal experience, never mind what everyone KNOWS is true.

And if they do pose challenges, offer some advice as to what that community or the country can do to remedy them.

Well, stop importing Jamaicans?

I think back to the time the Hutterites came to Canada. They could not be more different from the rest of us in our lifestyle. But over time, they've adjusted, we've adjusted and they are part of the community in their own way.

But the Hutterites didn't do drive-bys.

[jdobbin]

Oh good. I like to play with PC types. Heard the one about the Mexican the Pole and the Jew?

That is generally what I do. Of course, if you consider "supported evidence" to include nothing more than government statistics, even when the government doesn't keep statistics, well, you're going to be disappointed. For example, no level of government has ever made any kind of report or comment related to the street shootings in Toronto. It was left to Macleans magaine, in an interview, to drop the interesting statement that 80% of the people involved were Jamaicans. But generally what people like to say when you mention disproportionate crime from the Black community, is that I have no statistics, no proof. Never mind that face after face in the newspaper is black, never mind personal experience, never mind what everyone KNOWS is true.

Well, stop importing Jamaicans?

But the Hutterites didn't do drive-bys.

It isn't PC to get angry about hatred of Blacks and Jews or any other group. Hatred for no other reason than for what a person is is unacceptable.

As for statistics, put up the Maclean's link or any other that is up there.

I have no idea what the proportion of crime is related to a certain ethnic group. It isn't PC to identify a certain ethnic group that might have a disproportionate amount of crime amongst its people. In Canada, First Nations people make up a huge percentage of people locked up in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It's a fact. What's not a fact is that all First Nations are criminals.

Statistics related to how many Jamaicans come to Canada would be nice. Under what category did they come in? Where did they settle? Is there a legitmate problem happening there? These are all the things I want to know before making a sweeping generalization.

Hutterites don't defend Canada either. They were exempt from conscription. It isn't an issue now but it once was. Since then, there has been more cooperation but they remain a distinct ethnic group in Canada. There has been an accepting tolerance of who they are and what they contribute to Canada.

[Leafless]

There is one thing that make my blood boil is racism and intolerance or the hint that it is the motivation behind certain behaviour.

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory.

Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

[jbg]

There is one thing that make my blood boil is racism and intolerance or the hint that it is the motivation behind certain behaviour.

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory.

Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

When leftists run out of arguments the word "racism" is bandied around.

[jdobbin]

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory.

Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

Racism isn't a theory when it manifests itself in hatred.

[jdobbin]

When leftists run out of arguments the word "racism" is bandied around.

Often when some on the right have no evidence to support their claims, they allude to race, nationality or religion in general as being the source of the problem. Hatred toward a certain types of people are barely disguised in some discussions.

Is racism a myth? Is it just a difference of opinion when a Jewish temple is vandalized this week?

[Leafless]

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory.

Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

Racism isn't a theory when it manifests itself in hatred.

You just don't get it, do you?

The word racism does not really ( or even exist if it didn't characterize a believe) apply unless you believe in the meaning according to your personal belief.

When you say "racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" is simply your belief or OPINION, it is not fact.

So you are wrong to be critical or chastisize those who disagree with your belief.