Empty Hands
Senior Master
lol@ douchecanoeI've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe
R. Lee Ermey and Geico Insurance Company have also taught me my new favorite, "jackwagon."
Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
R. Lee Ermey and Geico Insurance Company have also taught me my new favorite, "jackwagon."
Blade96
Senior Master
lol
i gotta steal that word douchecanoe =] If you don't mind, of course.
i gotta steal that word douchecanoe =] If you don't mind, of course.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Now the french join our merry little discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042
PARIS (AFP) – [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]French [COLOR=#366388 !important]President [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Nicolas [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Sarkozy[/color][/color][/color] declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]television [COLOR=#366388 !important]interview[/color][/color][/color] when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.
"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.
"What are you doing in England?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042
PARIS (AFP) – [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]French [COLOR=#366388 !important]President [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Nicolas [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Sarkozy[/color][/color][/color] declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]television [COLOR=#366388 !important]interview[/color][/color][/color] when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.
"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.
"What are you doing in England?"
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
I thought I was a liberal but, if I agree with Sarkozy <washes out mouth>, does that make me Right Wing too? Maybe America's NBF is on to something!
I wish someone would say that here, but in these sensitive times it would be politically incorrect. :shrug:
The one good thing about climate change is that if the ice on Antarctica melts we will have a new habitable continent for those of us that don't like the new order. In that event, I would like to propose that I become the first President. Any takers for VP?
Once again, you're not listening.
Those that are here will die out. You are making the assumption that in order to solve the problem, one must do so immediately, ie., enact a law that makes them comply with a particular cultural attribute now. If they die out, there are still here for the purposes of the discussion. However, it is unnecessary in order to solve the problem.
But, if you really wanted to solve the problem immediately without violating the Constitution, its easy. The Supreme Court has stated that Congress and local government can enact laws in order to influence people's behavior. For instance, Federal Transportation funds being tied to the reduction of the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol. So enact such laws. They will be forced to comply or suffer the consequences.
Problem solved, solution served.
Unnecessary because they will immediately stop, er, not assimilating, and stop doing all the dastardly things the author of the original piece accused them of, or because you don't care if they choose not to assimilate, since according to you, they'll be the last generation that so refuses?
Pass *what* laws? You didn't state what laws you'd have passed. Restrict religion? Restrict public speech? What 'local laws' do you think would 'force them to comply'?
You say "enact such laws" without saying what they are.
And you still haven't said what you think my ideology is. You said I was fitting my argument to my ideology. I'd like to know what you think my ideology is.
I thought that this from the BBC might be relevant to the debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12415597
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12415597
I also think that if you swap the word "ideology" for the word "philosophy" (or even the phrase "point of view" then less umbridge might accrue.
What do I think Bill's point of view in this area is? Well, I only to go on what he has said here and in other threads that are to do with that thorny topic of Rights and/or Freedoms. My impression is that he places 'Freedom' right at the top of his list of things that are most important. That means that certain conclusions are inevitable for him, otherwise he has to re-evaluate his world-view to allow for other peoples freedoms not being as important as his own. It's a pretty moral stance I have to say viz to think that personal freedom is of paramount importance and that if "I" want to be free then all others must be so also.
Personally, it is my view that there is such a thing as too much freedom - as I said a couple of pages back, without limits 'freedom' is meaningless. I also feel that there is no such thing as a right to go and live in someone elses country. Just as well I feel that way or I might be holding a grudge against the Canadians as they wouldn't have me because I admitted I couldn't speak French.
What to do with the self-isolating immigrants annexing areas of British cities? Hmm, that's a hard question Bill.
What do I think Bill's point of view in this area is? Well, I only to go on what he has said here and in other threads that are to do with that thorny topic of Rights and/or Freedoms. My impression is that he places 'Freedom' right at the top of his list of things that are most important. That means that certain conclusions are inevitable for him, otherwise he has to re-evaluate his world-view to allow for other peoples freedoms not being as important as his own. It's a pretty moral stance I have to say viz to think that personal freedom is of paramount importance and that if "I" want to be free then all others must be so also.
Personally, it is my view that there is such a thing as too much freedom - as I said a couple of pages back, without limits 'freedom' is meaningless. I also feel that there is no such thing as a right to go and live in someone elses country. Just as well I feel that way or I might be holding a grudge against the Canadians as they wouldn't have me because I admitted I couldn't speak French.
What to do with the self-isolating immigrants annexing areas of British cities? Hmm, that's a hard question Bill.
Last edited:
There is no easy answer.
Also, it's a bit unfair to expect us to have an answer seeing as how we didn't cause the situation in the first place - I certainly wasn't asked if I minded having zones of my city turn into protectorates of Muslim Pakistan, complete with minaretes and loud-speakers (that no Christian church would get away with). For the record, yes, I do mind - sadly, if that makes me 'racist' there's not a lot I can do to deny it, for, after all, the people causing these changes are not 'mine'. That gives the impression that it's a racially based objection; it's actually (numerically amplified) culturally and religion based in my case but it's not simple to divide the two (and some might successfully argue that it's a distinction that makes no difference).
The house is already on fire, so to speak. All we've done in this thread is raise the alarm - thinking about how to constructively resolve the conflagration without anyone getting killed is a necessary step I agree. Probably a bit above our "pay grade" I would surmise.
Also, it's a bit unfair to expect us to have an answer seeing as how we didn't cause the situation in the first place - I certainly wasn't asked if I minded having zones of my city turn into protectorates of Muslim Pakistan, complete with minaretes and loud-speakers (that no Christian church would get away with). For the record, yes, I do mind - sadly, if that makes me 'racist' there's not a lot I can do to deny it, for, after all, the people causing these changes are not 'mine'. That gives the impression that it's a racially based objection; it's actually (numerically amplified) culturally and religion based in my case but it's not simple to divide the two (and some might successfully argue that it's a distinction that makes no difference).
The house is already on fire, so to speak. All we've done in this thread is raise the alarm - thinking about how to constructively resolve the conflagration without anyone getting killed is a necessary step I agree. Probably a bit above our "pay grade" I would surmise.
Last edited:
Neither. They will be the last generation that will be able to achieve the necessary critical mass to be able to live in isolation at a level that causes the issues Fatah is referring to: "You can have a large population of Muslims living in one area, and they have not yet seemed to be able to break out entirely from that one area and become part of the Canadian fabric.
This, BTW, is my primary answer to the question. The other part is somewhat tangential.
It depends. We use tax law to entice businesses and people to move to new areas. We provide loans and grants to do the same. There's all kinds of things the U.S. government can do to entice people to break out from their communities. As EH said, allow them the opportunities and encouragement for expanding their horizons and they are likely to do so.
Ah, it doesn't matter, though I will admit that the word "ideology" was not the concept that I was going for. That's what trying to be brief while typing hurriedly on a phone will do to you.
Interesting concept. Just the same, I would predict difficulty if the stated goal was to break up ethnic communities on the grounds that they're breeding grounds for behavior we don't want - ie, terrorism. I suspect the ACLU would be all over that like white on rice.
Any such law would have to be so carefully crafted to avoid targeting one group that I doubt it could be actually done. But I'll admit, it wasn't something I had thought of. Give you credit for that.
In particular from Iran's 'conservative' paper:
And Christians in Iran (are there any left?) have what rights? :erg:
The problem for Muslims trying to assimilate is Apostasy.
It's a bit of a disincentive to hitch up with a non Muslim!
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100504/interviewex-muslim-on-faith-womens-right-obama/
The problem is different from previous rounds of immigration where people wanted to be part of their new country. :asian:
It's a bit of a disincentive to hitch up with a non Muslim!
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100504/interviewex-muslim-on-faith-womens-right-obama/
The problem is different from previous rounds of immigration where people wanted to be part of their new country. :asian:
Last edited by a moderator:
and since when do we take the word of any of the talking heads or 'official organs'?!
Those are the blowhards of the other side...not to be believed just like the blowhards on this side who scream persecution every time somebody questions religious tradition vs bullying...
If I were to do something like this, I would actually do something along the lines of block grants to non-profit organizations for college education, housing opportunities, small business loans. This is coupled with a PSA campaign announcing opportunities for minorities. If we believe that these things would allow people to have more opportunity and participation in the American dream, which is what we are ultimately seeking, there is no need to mention anything about breeding grounds.
