Consensus is building that the theory of Multi-Culturalism is a Dud

I think intelligence is a handicap to understanding you. How am I a flat earth person ? That is just a cliche you picked up and used incorrectly.

The following is an example of you requiring more than a phrase book.What does that mean in your world ?

Yes, its all my fault. Have a good cry and get over it or spend your remaining few months being a bitter old man. I dont care either way.

Has anyone ever called you an arrogant arsehole ? I hope you can follow that.

Yet another self proclaimed scientist who must be right because they have an overinflated ego. Are you saying Dave's opinion is not justifiable because you dont like it ?

Do you read your posts ?

Your pouting and posturing about ASIAN origins for Native Americans is racist.

The facts can not be changed because you don't like them. If you knew anything about science, you would have met that principle somewhere. Perhaps this is the ideal time for you to remind us about how you are a scientist but no-one else understands science ? You arrogant arsehole...

Again with the science.....why is it you are the only one who can not see your stupidity ?

What an arrogant and ignorant statement. david is wrong because he is wrong. david knows nothing about science. Furthermore, he has demonstrated no ability to reason.

The facts can not be changed by your ignorance of them. Read the piece I posted from the Journal .

Are you referring to my question or to your statement ?

Do you work as a parking meter inspector ?

I'll take his honest opinion before I take your posturing that you are a "scientist".

He has demonstrated very strong political beliefs and sometimes his devotion has been let down by his argument.

Your frenzied belief in yourself would have more appeal if you demonstrated ability rather than wishful thinking.

Just because you buy one magazine does not mean it is right in everything it publishes. And I did read it.

FIGHTING FOR ORIGINAL CULTURALISM:


CONCORD —
Competing bills have been filed to eliminate
New Hampshire's license requirement for
carrying concealed weapons, dividing the pro-gun community.

Some are lining up behind state Rep. J.R. Hoell, a Dunbarton
Republican, and others behind state Rep. Jennifer Coffey,
a Republican from Andover.

Both of their bills allow anyone to carry a firearm openly
or concealed, loaded or unloaded, with or without a license.

Coffey's bill also removes the requirement that nonresidents
obtain a license to possess a firearm while in New Hampshire.

House Speaker William O'Brien, House Republican Leader D.J.
Bettencourt, Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley and others
who back Coffey's bill said it is not as extreme as Hoell's bill.

Hoell's bill would establish a criminal penalty for interfering
with someone's right to carry a gun and would repeal a prohibition
against citizens carrying a gun in a courthouse.

The bill includes a definition of a suitable person eligible
for what would become an optional license needed
to carry in other states. For example, a suitable person
could not be a felon.

Hoell said he wants judges and others to be allowed
to carry firearms in courthouses to defend themselves.

"Judges should be allowed to carry at work," he said.


He said he included the penalty because some local officials
responsible for issuing licenses have been slow to issue them
or not issued them at all.

Well, look at what the "magazine" is. Why do conservatives hate expertise? That education has been reduced to simplistic time wasting is the fault of the right. You illustrate that.

david,

That post is a low blow, even by your standards.

I didnt know that they did. If it is true, and you have offered no evidence, then I suspect it is because of the need for the nerdy to not throw punches...it could be detrimental to themselves in the long run....once they are pacifists, they would naturally trend to be lefties.

It would be more believable if you offered some examples or even just told us how it came about.

Getting back to the original subject, and setting aside the "who discovered what" argument that seems to have derailed the whole thing, I (along with the majority of Brits, I suspect) do believe that promoting Multiculturalism in Britain has been disastrous, for the following reason.

Put simply, Multiculturalism in Britain has been hijacked by Islam extremists, who use the whole thing as a way of keeping as many muslims as they can out of mainstream British society. To what end? I think we all know enough about Islamic fundamentalists to hazard a few guesses.

Other groups seem to integrate succesfully, yet still manage to hold on to and celebrate their own culture. As far as they are concerned, everyone lives together and enjoys the fact that they add to life's diversity here in the UK.

The vast majority of UK muslims should be included in this melting pot, but the reason why David Cameron is addressing this now is because everyone now realises that the whole multicultural bandwagon can be oh so divisive when it is being so openly abused, for sinister reasons or not, by extremists of any faith or creed.
Please don't forget that we also have the Human Rights Act which, when combined with all of the pro multicultural stuff that covers their backs, means that there are many bad people out their who are at present, virtually untouchable in the eyes of the law.

Just look at Abu Hamza as a prime example.
Do you think that he would have lasted five minutes in the USA, preaching his divisive hate on the street?
Well.....believe me, he's just the tip of the iceberg over here.

Fundamentalists or extremists, call them what you will, are at this moment using every advantage they can get in order to recruit, divide and separate the muslim population from mainstream British society.

Ten years ago it would have been rare to see a muslim woman walking around in the full head to foot covering, whatever it's called. Now, if you go to any major British city with a large muslim population, you will see them everywhere.

Twenty years ago, there were thousands of muslim women who had settled here but could not speak a word of English. In many, many cases, they still can't. Not a single word.
Indeed, there is no expectation that they should, in our fine multicultural eutopia. Councils up and down Britain go to extraordinary lengths and spend valuable time, effort and expense in translating all of their paperwork (leaflets, forms, etc) into twenty or thirty different languages, in order to accommodate these people who have lived here for twenty odd years.

Unfortunately, the entire muslim population seems to be bearing the brunt of all this, which is not at all fair as the vast majority are law abiding, peaceful people who make every effort to fit in with and contribute to the British way of life.
But to really, really know what Cameron is on about, and believe me, he has hit the nail squarely on the head with his speech, you need to live here for a while just to see what's going on.
I'm not prone to sensationalise stuff, but if the bad guys aren't reined in somehow, and fast, I honestly fear for what may happen here in the future.

It fills me with exultant JOY!!!!!, as FREEDOM blossoms forth!

That 's AMERICA, to me:
the Land of the Brave
and the Home of the FREE!





David

That is factually incorrect.
A lot of conservatives (not including myself)
have taken quite an interest in education
and intensely desire to re-instate
the teaching techniques of the 1800s.
Thay have written a lot about it.

I favor the libertarian Summerhill filosofy,
but I have never gotten involved in that.





David

Prof. Plain, in your opinion,
if a citizen,
or if a holder of public office (e.g., police)
interferes with the Constitutional Right of a citizen
to keep and bear arms (concealed or openly, or BOTH)
do u believe that such interference
shoud be defined as a "hate crime" ???





David

What an enormous collection of non sequiturs!