Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    You really do need to educate yourself instead of just watching the CBC or reading The Star. The first wave of "migrants that Americans hate" were almost exclusively from Haiti - refugees who came to the US under a TPS program (Temporary Protection Status) put in place due to the 2011 earthquake. After determining that is was safe to return to Haiti, refugees were given 18 months' notice that their TPS status would be ending. Canada had an identical policy for Haitians but ended it more than a year prior to Trump's announcement. As a result, almost all Haitians that rushed to the border as a result of Trudeau's idiotic tweet, are/have been ineligible for refugee status. Trump is simply doing what Canada SHOULD be doing. Refugees are precisely that = people seeking temporary refuge and ultimately/hopefully returning to their countries when deemed safe to do so. It is not/should not be viewed as an alternate path to immigration/citizenship. Refugees are refugees. Immigrants are immigrants. Different rules, obligations and expectations. Trudeau and his CBC enablers constantly combine immigration with refugees and "asylum seekers" - specifically to paint those who want better control of our borders and refugee/asylum processes as "anti immigration". It's a perfect example of why this Prime Minister is the most divisive in Canadian history.
  2. 3 points
    Because you use isolated examples which are very much NOT indicative of the actual values and beliefs of the world's Muslims. I'll point out there have been a hundred thousand Islamic terrorist attacks in the last twenty years and you'll post a cite of a nice Muslim who collects cats and bakes brownies for the neighbour's kids as if that is some sort of logical rebuttal.
  3. 3 points
    Russia is a vast shithole of poverty, where getting drunk is the national sport. Putin and his fellow organized crime figures own everything worth owning while everyone else lives in Stalin era concrete apartments or run down shacks. Using their military to threaten and intimidate others makes Russians puff out their chests in pride, to be a part of such a 'great' country.
  4. 3 points
    Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values. Equality of women, etc.
  5. 3 points
    I think you could include almost every western country in that statement, Scandinavian women are not the only retards to go hiking in a hostile Muslim country, Not sure what convinces them that it would be a great idea....but we in the west are way to trusting overall, just look at the all the liberal government platforms and you'll get what I mean...
  6. 3 points
    You realize these are not studies, but merely people who checked boxes on a survey, right? Which leaves the definitions wildly uneven. There is a consensus behind 'high skilled' people immigrating, but most of our immigrants are not high skilled. The consensus behind low skilled is more shaky. It says 'the average'. What does that mean? How much better off would 'the average' American be? It also, btw, had a part B to the question, in which the majority of those asked also agreed many low skilled American workers would be substantially worse off. I prefer studies where things like taxation and government expenditures are clearly taken into account and terms are clearly defined.
  7. 3 points
    Really? Please identify your sources. I think there's growing proof that economic orthodoxy on immigration isn't supported by evidence in relation to its impacts on post-industrial economies. The British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has concluded that immigration doesn't in and of itself promote economic growth insofar as improvement in living standards is concerned. He's pointed out that there are winners and losers, with owners of capital benefiting from reduced wages and greater demand for the products and services they sell while those nearer the bottom of the economic scale suffer as a result of increased competition for employment, housing and access to public services. He also notes that large-scale immigration reduces social cohesion in developed economies as those who pay to support social programs lose interest in paying for services they don't access and in many cases are precluded from accessing. Australia, which has conducted a broad study of its immigration program, which was modeled on Canada's, has concluded that large-scale immigration offers no effective or realistic remedy for the so-called "demographic deficit" generated by falling fertility rates and increasing life expectancy. Canada, predictably, chooses to stick its head in the sand and listen to its bought-and-sold politicians recite babble about immigration that isn't grounded in evidence. We don't monitor economic outcomes for refugees much less subject our broader immigration program to objective analysis. Why bother when politicians can just sell blithe assumptions as good policy?
  8. 3 points
    I'm part of a secret liberal 'culture target' demolition crew. We are actually the ones who started 'Happy Holidays' and got Soros to fund the Starbucks cup that removed baby Jesus from the manger. Next phase of the plan is to have people wishing each other 'Happy Sojourn', to have government mandate flexible stat holidays, to work with PETA to emphasize the donkey and other manger animals, and to promote a non-materialistic holiday with fewer presents. We will also merge with Hannukah. I am so confident in the mainstream media's hold on the public that I can publicize our plan here in the full knowledge that it will get zero coverage.
  9. 3 points
    "Louisa Vesterager Jespersen, 24, from Denmark, and Maren Ueland, 28, from Norway, were found dead from knife wounds near a popular tourist spot." What a load of sanitized BS! They weren't killed by "knife wounds". I've seen the video, their heads were brutally sawed off with large knives. In the video one of them is being held face down as the filth commences to cut into the back of her neck, after he starts they roll her face up and he continues cutting while another places his foot on the side of her head to hold her still. She tries moving her free arm and the one cutting it grabs her arm as he continues cutting. As she falls still he stands and starts hacking at her spine until he severs her head, he then holds it up and tosses it aside like a piece of trash. It's brutal and beyond vile, it makes me feel such rage that I can't find words to express it. Yet the media downplays it as "knife wounds". Too bad for them, thousands have seen the brutal truth. This is the truth, but most will avoid the disgusting reality in order to remain safe in their self constructed denial of it. I'd gladly re-enlist in the CAF if they told me I could go and eliminate this kind of filth from the planet. The religion of peace, sure. F*ck!
  10. 3 points
    I haven't seen anything from the Rebel posted on here, the Sun recognizes realityand speaks for a large no. of people who don't buy into the liberal horse-sh.t. Those with purple faces are the ones trying to justify and push something that on the face seems to be a benign document but it is not. Ask Australia and the other countries who have not signed on why they see it as a threat to their own sovereignty and policies. Maybe they didn't because while couching it in beneign terms, it's intent is to see global mass migration become a legal 'human right', along with seeking to see criticism of such policies become "hate speech". It ‘s intention, again while seeming benign and non binding, (see the Paris Accords) has the intent and aim of allowing open borders along with the intent to shut down the media and anyone else who questions these policies by categorizing criticism as 'hate speech', via propaganda. While it gives a nod to free speech a Dutch politician has issued a warning which we should listen to: Though the pact is said to be non-binding, it is meant to establish the groundwork for an Orwellian campaign to cement mass migration as a human right legally above any and all criticism. This is how authoritarian, totalitarian gov’t start to oppress the people, by making it illegal to criticize anyone who speaks out against them, this is a supposedly benign document eventually becomes law.
  11. 2 points
    Guess who is funding a 'fact checker' for FB (as reported by BBC)_ https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/google-soros-fund-facebooks-new-fact-checker/
  12. 2 points
    If JT has any balls he would now tweet: "Canada will welcome all Saudi Arabian women seeking asylum from their oppressors." But he don't
  13. 2 points
    Look, its not about "hating" on gays and depriving them of their human rights. Its about not encouraging it as far is government and culture is concern. About time snowflakes learn the nuanced difference. Also when the government force it down our throat it grind my gear. If I want to object to baking a cake for a gay couple on religious ground then that is within my "god-given" rights. Fact is, it is a private business, I can refuse service to ANYONE. On a cultural note, there is nothing wrong with thinking two man kissing as disgusting. If you think that it is "normal" then that's your opinion just don't try to force the rest of us to thinking that it isn't nasty. You're entitled to your own opinion as are the rest of us.
  14. 2 points
    Jonathan Haidt suggests there are two kinds of people (roughly). Type A is eager to see and experience new things, feels quite at home around strangeness and wildly different people and languages, has little real respect for traditions or respect for institutions and the state. They live for the here and now, for the experience and love diversity and novelty. Type B has a more stolid, grounded view of life, values traditions and respects the state and its institutions, family and familiarity. These are people who feel a sense of kinship and belonging to the place they grew up in and the people they grew up with. And by extension, with the people of the nation they grew up and live in. It's not a sense of family, exactly, but certainly a sense of tribal affiliation, perhaps, or patriotism. The first kind of people are overwhelmingly urban, and not just urban but live in large cities with universities. The second kind tend to live all over, but in urban areas and smaller cities have a much, much higher prevalence simply because type A tends to move away from those areas looking for novelty and newness. The problem is that our national media is completely focused on those large urban centres and draws almost their entire stable of reporters and staff from Type A. And by and large they have declared that Type A is the only righteous type to be, and the views of Type B are illegitimate and unCanadian. And since they largely live in bubbles centred on those large urban aras they rarely wind up meeting or dealing with Type B, so have little idea how numerous they are. This was best evidenced by the declaration of repugnance at the idea of values testing for immigrants, where several declared the idea 'UnCanadian". Yet polls showed 75% of Canadians actually liked the idea. The Type A types who are in charge of the mainstream media and arts have few cares or concerns with however many migrants and immigrants come into Canada, and even fewer about what that might do to Canadian traditions and values since they don't really value either. Type B, of course, has far more concerns, and the longer they are ignored and sneered at the angrier some of them are going to get.
  15. 2 points
    There is also an issue with slaughtering animals in the streets, common in Muslim countries but not acceptable in Western lands. Egypt tries to crack down on it, but they ignore their own government, so doubtful they will have much respect for any host country. http://www.egypttoday.com/Article/2/56308/Why-people-will-never-obey-government-stop-slaughtering-in-streets https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7074173/eid-al-adha-2018-animal-sacrifice-cows-beheaded/ https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/709345/Muslims-urged-not-to-SLAUGHTER-ANIMALS-in-the-streets-of-France-at-Eid-al-Adha https://cutacut.com/2018/08/22/is-pakistan-the-only-muslim-country-that-slaughters-animals-on-the-streets-on-eid-ul-azha/ I recently met people from Russia and Switzerland and as we were talking about our respective countries, the Swiss guy commented about their problems with Muslims - they steal sheep from farmers and petting zoos, cut their heads off, take the bodies and leave the severed heads behind. He also talked about how difficult it is because the Swiss are very open and tolerant but they feel the Muslims are pushing this tolerance past the limits of what is acceptable. He was generally happy with how the Swiss government handles troublemakers - they deport problem people mush quicker and more often than we do. He was also happy with how their government listens to the people and that the Swiss population has much more say in what happens in their country than we do. But again, this is probably more of a "traffic issue" to some.
  16. 2 points
    No the sad joke is you, politicizing the death of a child. That is why I called your posts inflammatory.
  17. 2 points
    Hey MH, maybe use some tylenol before posting. It helps reduce inflammation.
  18. 2 points
    Nice try. But sorry to tell you that you've utterly misrepresented my position. I've noted that the real danger of the UN Compact for Migration is domestic, or regional in the case of the EU. Under international law, which has since the 17th century been governed by the "Westphalian sovereignty" principle, such pacts are voluntary and non-binding. Their efficacy rests on the willingness of signatory states to in good faith observe their provisions. The great powers, the U.S., China and Russia, routinely eschew any notion that their sovereignty be undermined and in this case gave the migration pact a big swerve. But some democracies, notably Australia and Italy, also refused to sign the thing, noting that its provisions were/are inconsistent with their policies and practices. Why be hypocritical, then, and sign something they have no intention of or interest in implementing? This brings us to Western democracies that did sign it. Merkel indicated in the Bundestag that Germany sees it as a mechanism to bring the broader EU, and particularly smaller and poorer states which have been reluctant to accept Germany's migration agenda, into compliance with Germany's immigration policies and practices. Once approved by a majority of states, she has stated, the pact's provisions will become "valid" throughout the EU. And countries like Sweden and Britain, which already accord migrants significant social benefits, no doubt want to see a reduction in the kind of "benefits shopping" which attracts migrants to their shores. But Canada? We already grant immigrants and refugees most of the benefits compelled by the pact, thus rendering our support for it more ideological than practical. An objective observer must sure be concerned as to whether the intent of the Lib government is to etch in stone its own immigration agenda. Other inherent risks, like that entailed in the pact's endorsement of censorship and propaganda in promoting its objectives, are chilling. But then, our "progressives" seem entirely comfortable with such anti-demographic 'ends justify means' shenanigans. "Deplatforming" and demonizing critics has become part of their repertoire. Should we be giving this kind of nonsense encouragement? Anybody who actually believes in democracy - a messy and inconvenient system, at best - has ample reason to be concerned.
  19. 2 points
    And people accuse him of lying!
  20. 2 points
    But they are not at fault for believing the fantasy when the media and government, not to mention their schools, tell them so constantly.
  21. 2 points
    I have many friends in Europe and what they tell me is radically different from what the looney left media reports. Of course, we mirror the same lack of regard for truth and reason from the left end of our political spectrum, so we will suffer from importing and promoting the same kind of culture within the immigrant stream to Canada's open borders.
  22. 2 points
    Trudeau's most admired country, China, and its 'basic dictatorship', have certainly been a disappointment for him. He was snubbed when he traveled there in hopes of opening negotiations on a trade agreement and now he seems resistant to becoming overtly involved in fighting for the freedom of Canadian citizens jailed by the Chinese, likely in retaliation for the Meng extradition arrest. Reportedly, Trudeau did speak about the issue today, days after it became a matter of public concern but didn't seem to say much to reassure anyone a solution is forthcoming. Perhaps it's time that Trudeau admit his China strategy has failed and move on. But he doesn't seem the reflective type. Canada will get nowhere with China via bilateral negotiations. It will have to work closely with other Western countries to set new ground rules to govern the relationship between China and the rest of developed world. The spat over Meng is a sign of a larger problem and illustrates the basic reality that China, probably accurately, views Canada as an American client state, a circumstance that's unlikely to change. The world has changed a lot since Trudeau Sr.'s "North-South" initiative. JT doesn't have the gravitas to be taken seriously on such matters and in any case Canada is now a less influential country than it was in PET's day.
  23. 2 points
    Lol. Comrade you need to tell your beloved leader to get the phack out of the Ukraine which includes Crimea, Georgia, and Syria to start before you rant about Texas.
  24. 2 points
    Won't it be too late then? We already have laws regarding immigration that we are ignoring and refusing to enforce. That tells me that this government agrees with the Pact - that all countries should be required to open their borders to anyone at any time for any reason and the existing population must provide for all their needs/wants/desires. Once it becomes law that anyone, from any part of the world can walk into any country at any time and expect to be given housing, healthcare and social assistance for life, it will be too late to challenge. From the Pact, it appears that this is the goal - open borders across the world, the rights of economic migrants coming before all else, with the native populations only having the right to STFU and pay for it all.
  25. 2 points
    This guy gets it...Trudeau and his Sunshine Band do not...when it comes to such matters. Blindly trusting "good faith" and naive inexperience have led Canada to this "botched affair". Just...plain...dumb.....