do you support multiculturalism policy?
346773
It depends.  On the one hand, it's a proven fact that poor, and often minority, students don't get as good an education, and therefore it's harder for them to get into college.  Letting in a minority student with a lower GPA than a non-minority is about the only way to even things out a little.\n\nOn the other hand, if you're a white male, it can be very hard to get scholarships, and some schools will choose a minority student over a white student, which seems just as unfair.  \n\nI suppose if I had to choose, I'd keep the policy, but use it sparingly and hope that the administration knows what they're doing.
864597
Many groups self-segregate. Multiculturalism proposed that all cultures are equal, so immigrants were under no obligation to assimilate. I think all immigrants should have to sign an explicit contract as a condition of entry agreeing to support the dominant culture, to abide by its rules, to encourage their children to join the police or army, etc. If, say a Brit settles temporarily in Saudi Arabia, there may be a case for living in an alcoholic ghetto, but if they wish to reside permanently then they need to sign up for an Islamic dress code, public executions, etc.
100505
In some ways, I suppose, but I'm also a firm believer that you can pull enough things out of religious texts to easily support two opposing positions.\n\nHowever, my religion and my politics are compatible - I'm a reform Jew and a Democrat.  I mostly follow party line - I'm pro-choice, pro-seperation of church and state, anti-war, pro-gun control, anti-illegal wiretapping and so on, and (as I learned during a lobbying trip to D.C.) all of these ideas can be defended Judaically, but that's not the primary reason why I support them.  The one issue I can think of where my religious beliefs directly lead to my feelings on a policy issue is in my support of Israel (I'm not a hardliner - I just would like to see it be able to exist peacefully).
521735
There is no point in denying that the BNP are anything other than a racist party - introducing white only policies clearly is discriminatory.  The party contradicts the ethos of the European Union and has no place in modern, intelligent society.  I do recognise, however, that everyone has a right to freedom of speech and that to prevent such a party existing would contradict our democratic society.  However, it is important that people are aware of what they are voting for and the type of people that could potentially run the country.  No one person or race owns a country and no one should have the right to say who should or shouldn't live there.  \n\nWith regards to the people in Barking and Dagenham, I've never seen or heard such ignorant and gullible people in my life and this is exactly the type of people the BNP has to resort to targetting.
712340
you say you don't hate nor that you are intolerant....and yet the wording of your question sounds very intolerant.  \nI don't "demand" anyone go along with any agenda.  I don't have and "agenda."  I simply believe that people should have equal rights and be free from discrimination.
1043239
To some extent the policy of a country will always be against the views of some folks.\n\nAlthough there is some rationale between resisting perceived invaders this does not justify blowing up a train full of commuters in the UK or Spain, crashing planes into buildings in the US or blowing yourself up in a crown of old folks in Iraq.
438736
No.  And those that do have the most pathetic arguments in support of it.  It's always "compassion." Or they try to tie it to the civil rights movement of the 60.\n\nNEWS FLASH\nIllegals aliens are NOT citizens.  They have only HUMAN rights in the USA.  THAT'S IT.  They have no Constitutionally guaranteed rights.\n\nDeporting them is NOT a civil rights issue.  We have the right to manage our immigration policy however we see fit.\n\nAnd regarding compassion, I have tons of compassion for them.  But we have a country to run, and we can't let people just waltz into the USA.  WE CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO IMPORT POLITICS.  Poor, uneducated, illiterate people tend to like SOCIALISM.  I don't.  I'm not talking about good all american bleeding heart liberalism.  I'm talking about Castro quality SOCIALISM.\n\nAlso, they are massing in the Southwest by the MILLIONS.  Do you realize that the population of TEXAS is 22 million.  And the proposed legislation wants to make 12 million illegals citizens.  And MOST of those are in the southwest.  So, don't you think the people of these states have the right to not get their vote diluted by potential SOCIALISTS.  this is not about race.  I have no problem with people who are here legally.  But when you allow millions of people in, they congregate together and hold the same political leanings (like allegiance to Mexico and socialistic beliefs).  The fact that most can't speak English just strengthens their solidarity and reinforces their beliefs because they can't understand what most Americans are saying.\n\nThis has the makings of ethnic strife written all over it.  Look at Northern Ireland. Iraq. France. Cyprus. Sudan. Turkey AND Iran with the Kurds.  Quebec in France.  There is a clear correlation between ethnic strife when large areas do not integrate into the whole.  this is what will happen if we have entire cities with millions of new non-English speaking spring up in the southwest.  And this will happen if we have an open border.  The 12 million that we're talking about right now is just a start.  What about the next 30 years???\n\nAnd don't be fooled by the "guest worker" program.  They'll still be dirt poor, but "legal."  Then they'll have a basis for petitioning for rights.  They WILL want citizenship EN MASSE.  It will be the exact same situation, but worse since they'll have been INVITED.\n\nPersonally, I'd rather pay a dollar more per pound of oranges, rather than have my kids or grandkids bombed or have to fight a civil war.
916810
Multicultural school?\n\nI would just prefer one that didn't discriminate as opposed to a certain school in Minnesota that had to ship black people from New York to fill quotas like my college roommate did.\n\nI went to a school with people of all religions/cultural backgrounds and from many countries.  I enjoyed it.   I would want that for my children.
804311
I support HUMAN BEINGS and Civil Rights and immigrants.
668468
No.  I would support discrimination based on not fitting in.  I don't care if it is national origin, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs, gender bending, what the hell ever.\n\nI have never had a problem working with people because of their origin, beliefs, or gender alignment.  And I mean queerer than a $3 bill.  I had a boss that was.  I enjoyed working for him.\n\nIf they don't fit with the team though, they are less than useless.\n\nCount my vote as a yes and no...
93023
No.  In a nation founded on the principles of democratic participation, it is blind allegience is, in fact, actively unpatriotic.  In arguing for the unconditional, unciritical support of government policies one undermines the philosophy of individuality and civic participation on which a democracy is founded.  Last I checked, undermining the founding principles of your country was not an act of patriotism.\n\nAlso, I think that thompj64us has a point that supporting policies that will lead to the destruction of your country is distincly unpatriotic, even when those policies are written by government officials.\n\n_______________\nTo answer Andy's question (which by the way are actually irrelevant):\nNote that the "more or less" does not make sense as there is no point of compairison, and I will ignore it.  Also note that his compulsive use of "Democrats" is idiotic and irrational, as it implies that these acts are acceptable unless the person performing the action is a Democrat.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to oppose the war?\n\nIt is patriotic to oppose a war that is hurting our country.  What is unpatriotic is supporting a war that will devastate international relations, cost the nation billions of dollars, and cost countless American and Iraqi lives.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to bash their country \n>>>on foreign soil?\n\nIn a country that values free speech, it is unpatriotic to sensor the speech of others.  It is not, however, unpatriotic to speak in opposition to policies or practices with which one does not agree.  In a democracy, dissent is never unpatriotic.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to have the same \n>>>talking points as the number 2 Al Queada operative?\n\nWTF?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  However, it is not inherent unpatriotic to have something in common with Al Queada or any other organization or nation.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to hope that \n>>>America loses the war on terror so they can score political points?\n\nI don't think anyone is hoping we will lose the war.  However, I do believe that the harm done by the current administration can and will vastly exceed the cost of the war, and in that regard it may be in our best intrest as a nation to lose the war and elect someone competent.\n\n>>>Want to lose a war? Let a Democrat run it (aka Black HAwk Down)\n\nWant to invade a soveign nation on false pretexts, start a war that costs billions of dollars and countless lives, and find yourself stuck in that war with no exit plan in sight?  Let Bush run the country.  Leaders on both sides have made bad wartime decisions.  The current war in Iraq is certainly among the worst military fiascos our nation has seen, and the travesty is expounded by the fact that the evidence on which the war was started has since been demonstrated to have been deliberately and meticulously forged.\n\n__________\n>>>If the questions are so irrelevant then why take the time to \n>>>answer them? \n\nThey're irrelevant to the question of the patriotism blind allegience, but they're still insulting, and (as per my answers), the implications are incorrect.\n\n>>>The truth hurts doesn't it?\n\nIt might if you believe what you do and actually looked around, but apparently ignoring the turth helps or you'd be writhing in pain.\n\n______________\nAndy, perhaps you should brush up on your political philosophy.  You clearly have no concept of what patriotism even is.  Nor democracy for that matter.\n\nThe exchange of political ideas is a fundimental principle of democracy.  This includes the idea that our government might be making a mess of things.  To oppose this exchange is to oppose democracy. America is a democracy, and thus an enemy of democracy is an enemy of America.  To speak out against tho
326419
yes because both countries had taken steps againest extremists.Both countries have 50% same cultural values.We can live in friendly enviorment.
780982
I signed-  thank you guys for finding these links and posting them.\n\nps. to Glenn don't you think it's time they embraced our culture and our language? That includes following our laws and speaking English.
818665
I would likely support it. We need a more centralist party. One without the extreme views of both R's an D's. One that looks out for the interests of the middle class.
976633
No no no no no! Every country should be it's own, and be seperate. Countries shouldn't be mixed together. If they are, people lose their convictions that set them apart in the first place. (i.e. "nutrality". btw, nutrality is the first step towards humanism and a Godless nation)\nIf cultures are swirled together, it  leaves a mellow, confused country that is fighting itself because of citizen unrest.
943357
Yes they certainly should, and I don't think it should be a question of being 'allowed' either. They should make the decision themselves for what they feel is best for their country without overbearing 'superpowers' breathing down their necks.
626474
I would have to say yes and its not only true with race.  As soon as you identify strongly with any group of people you automatically trust and respect your group more than the other group with nothing to base that on other than its your group.  \n\nIf we can just take it to another level and decide that we are all human beings and that we all belong to the same race then we wouldn't need all these subdivisions.  \n\nOn the other hand if we were truly non racist then we wouldn't have to worry about it.  Racism has improved but we still have a way to go.  Lets not take too many more backwards steps.