Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

Post anything off topic here

  1. What's new in this club
  2. Likely the real reason Trudeau didn't close the US border is because it still allows people from the U.S. to illegally to cross into Canada at places like Roxham Rd. If he'd said the border is completely closed, Americans including potential illegals would assume that included them illegal entry point or not. But that's not the real issue here. The problem is that he's still allowing illegal immigrants into Canada during a deadly pandemic which is unconscionable especially when his and the provincial gov'ts have told Canadian's to self quarantine, keep social distance and do everything they can to stop the spread of the disease including curbing travel for anything that isn't absolutely necessary. So it's quite apparent he doesn't really give a shit about the rest of us or he wouldn't have this double standard for entry to Canada would he?
  3. The Department of Canadian Heritage is paying newsrooms to write climate change stories. Subsidies paid to publishers under a $50 million Local Journalism Initiative were intended for strictly local coverage of courts, councils and school boards “where there is nothing at the moment”, the department had claimed. https://www.blacklocks.ca/govt-pays-for-climate-news/
  4. This is not surprising as the conditions on the islands where thousands are, are terrible conditions, they cannot take any more and Islanders are protesting saying they ‘want their islands back’. https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/greek-island-residents-protest-over-migrant-camps-and-conditions https://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/greece-wants-fence-to-keep-migrants-out/news-story/626ceedb978972fff4e1c40d87668467 Greece wants to install a floating barrier in the Aegean Sea to deter migrants arriving at its islands' shores through Turkey, government officials say.
  5. And it makes for a helluva good night's rest.
  6. Blankets are not a panacea, so the UN wouldn't help. Do your part, sleep the sleep, carry on with the climate change. Just because it isn't going to stop AGW is no reason to not cut back on meat. It's a healthy thing to do. We all eat too much protein anyway.
  7. Well, hey, are you ready to jump in for world government run by the UN ? I thought not. So let's do our part, then, and we will have the sleep of the just.
  8. The claim is that they're revenue neutral. But I don't necessarily believe that. If you have a link about low-income people being hit by it, I'd like to read it. Farming is a business, so that's a different case to me.
  9. I meant everyone in the world. Good luck with that tax.
  10. Except the carbon tax and likely any other punitive taxes are not revenue neutral. They do in fact impact low income people the hardest and are certainly causing hardship now for many, including farmers.
  11. Of only we had some mechanism to encourage behaviour, like some kind of revenue neutral tax.
  12. The hard part is getting everyone to do it. I've cut my meat consumption by ~90% in the last couple of years, but it's like buying a Prius or planting a tree. It doesn't make any difference unless everyone does it.
  13. Again, freedom is a problem. Unless it's a freedom we like... such as to pollute, increase CO2 and such.
  14. Yes, individual rights are now subject to the rulings of the government, especially when led by a strongman. Welcome to conservative lala land.
  15. 20% meat reduction doesn't sound that hard
  16. Of course LOL Meanwhile, 'climate change' is more and more of an excuse to impose taxes. I refuse to eat plant based crap which isn't much better than dog food IMO. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51210622 People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
  17. Exactly, but then the U.N. thinks differently, this is dated, but here we have the U.N. dictating who we can accept and who not to reject, but really, what's to stop people from massively invading other countries on the pretext that it's 'climate change'. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/02/climate-change-will-create-worlds-biggest-refugee-crisis What we need is a level of immigration that we can successfully cope with, one that doesn't strain the infrastructure, e,g, housing, on schools and health care, which is allready happening.
  18. I wonder of that will always be true, or if it matters in the long run. Crop failures, drought, conflict over water, starvation and disease will make the UN definition of 'refugee' irrelevant to the people that have the ability to find a place that may allow them and their families to stay alive. I won't be around to see it, about which I'm both disappointed and relieved, but I personally do not think Canada will survive as a separate country, and I don't think there's much we can do about that. I think the immediate move of the States will be to simply take us over, as a 'friendly' invader, or not, because in some ways we are best placed to offer survival to humans and having our resources would allow the States to maintain power in the world. I don't know what will happen in Europe, but given their proximity to the places which will suffer the most, I don't think it will be pretty. I believe that the world will look very, very different in 200 years time. Of course, I may be 100% wrong - I hope I am. If I'm not, I hope the lessons we could learn stay with humans and that we do create a better, more humane society and a sustainable world. Saw a comment the other day about what to call the generation being born now - a suggestion was "Generation Fucked".
  19. I would think climate refugees would be more of a problem for very small countries. If it's determined you're able to move to safely another area in your same country you will be denied refugee status. Things like poverty, famine, and climate are also not one of the criteria where you can make a refugee claim under the UN convention. Usually it has to do with political persecution of some kind.
  20. Like a dog blaming a man of being too hirsute. When the water starts rising and people have to move away, can they? Hater actually is not something that refers only to hatred of people, but it also applies to hatred toward things. It's in the dictionary.
  21. I'm only talking about people's initial decision to start moving in search of a place to live. In the case of climate refugees, they'll decide when the place they're at becomes too inhospitable, and they'll decide when to start looking for other places. That is something we have no control over, nor do our governments. We only have control over what we do if/when they get to our borders. Ain't it funny how often people try to do just that though.
  22. Countries have the right to secure their own territorial borders. That's a basic tenet of sovereignty. If people try to cross and that country doesn't want them to they can use force including military force if necessary. Similarly, a poor old person in a wheelchair doesn't get to cross a police barrier just because they're a poor old person in a wheelchair. Having sad circumstances doesn't automatically give you the right to break rules/laws. People don't have a right to make up their own reality and their own facts and push it on other people to accept.
  23. I wouldn't call someone who believes women should not leave the house without a burka - liberal. She's just following the lead of others here who accuse anyone of disliking burkas and Islam of being "haters". And apparently has nothing to add to the discussion except personal attacks.
  24. Exactly, disagree with a liberal and it's hate and or racism.
  25. Ah but that's the new favorite word for the left and its activists! There's no more disapproval or disagreement or even dislike! There's no judgement based on what you've seen and heard and experienced of a given group. There's no wariness or doubt or suspicion about a group's demonstrated behaviour, no prejudice. Either you fully approve of, like and admire a given group or you 'hate' them. Apparently the Left finds this a more useful pejorative to use for anyone who disagrees with them as it evokes a red faced angry/furious, raging person who isn't thinking logically. As opposed to someone who has considered the available information and made a decision as to what is in their own and their country's best interests.


  • Create New...