Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by marcus

  1. Don Cherry being fired by SN on Rememberance Day - that's tough to watch. Despite an obvious shortsightedness on an issue he should have been better educated about - he's done so much for Canadian veterans. Fact this came out on November 11t is sad. Right decision, wrong day.

    It is sad seeing Cherry go down in flames. There are ways to have difficult conversations about our society and what we should value without sowing divisiness.


    Here is an article from a brown sportswriter which I believe shows an interesting angle and perspective:


    Here is a part of it:

    The reason I decided to express an opinion on this man I spend most of my time trying to forget is that I felt an important nuance of what he said Saturday night was being lost. And it was being lost because in order to hear it, you need a bit of a trained ear. And frankly, in the Canadian sports media, there is a decided lack of trained ears.

    When Ron MacLean began Sunday night’s “Hometown Hockey” broadcast with an apology, one I took as sincere, he said something that sums up the problem. If you watch the segment of “Coach’s Corner” in question (I will not link to it, you can find it yourself at this point), you will note that MacLean did not even flinch when Cherry mentioned the words “you people” in reference to people who are new to Canada.

    There are all sorts of reasons why MacLean should not only have flinched, but pounced. How did Cherry know the people he saw walking around downtown Toronto and Mississauga without poppies were immigrants? Were they wearing signs? Or did they look a certain way and he, in his infinite wisdom, assumed that to be the case?

    • Like 1

  2. 10 hours ago, Teena said:

    No I have not. It's about two years that I've been to a local game and a year for a NHL game ... never seen one?

    There is a reason why they have punjabi commentary. There is a huge fanbase.

    I live in Vancouver and I see Indians, Filipinos, Middle Easterns, Chinese, etc. Canucks fans everywhere. 

    Hopefully this won't make your head blow up:


  3. 10 hours ago, Shady said:

    I don’t understand how his comments are automatically related to immigrants.  From what I read of his comments, they could pretty much apply to most people.

    "You people love.. you come here. whatever it is..you love our way of life...."

    at 10 seconds:

    He went on to talk about people in Mississauga and Downtown Toronto.

    C'mon. It's more than obvious he was talking about immigrants.

  4. On 11/8/2019 at 8:49 AM, Argus said:

    In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.


    I can't find that information in any actual statistics. Just some opinion piece with nothing to cite his numbers. Have you looked into the validity of this information?

    Also, the writer wants the rest of the family of the principal applicant to be qualified the same way? Like the children of the principal applicant should be assessed on their skills, education and experience? You know how ridiculous that sounds?

  5. On 11/8/2019 at 3:31 PM, Army Guy said:

    Sorry to let you down, I live in Fredericton NB , where the green party has elected, that should tell you everything..... the PPC party here picked up very little votes, I voted conservative to help to keep the liberals out of town. Who knew that everyone else was voting for the greens...… Had the PPC had a chance I would of voted for them. 

    Climate change has really hit you guys in that area. Looks like many people were feeling the effects of climate change firsthand and it explains why it was their priority and how it effected their voting.

  6. 5 hours ago, Teena said:

    Well said Argus! Crime and poverty increasing in Canada. 

    The crime in Brampton, Ontario -


    “Browntown,” “Bramladesh”or “Singhdale” – is just like the nicknames imply: mostly brown. On our street of new semi-detached houses, I see brown and black families, mostly immigrants.


    Here's Why Violent Crime Is On The Rise in Brampton :


    Those brown people eh?

    From your own article, you scared little person:

    And, though Brampton may seem worse than other cities in regards to crime, that may not be the case.

    According to Statistics Canada, Peel's violent crime rate is at a rate of 620 per 100,000; however, this falls below the provincial rate of 899 and the national rate of 1,144. Peel continues to show a violent crime rate below a number of other Canadian cities including Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton.   

  7. 2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

    here are the results of 3 polls which show that in most cases Canadians do not favor higher immigration numbers , many feel they are to high... I think Marcus is being dishonest here with this post....or putting to much faith in them...



    You should check the dates of your articles and surveys:


    November 2018.

    The survey in the OP is from October of 2019, right in the middle of the elections. The results show why the party with immigration as its central issue won 0 seats and very little support countrywide. 

    I think you're lazy by not paying attention to what you're sharing and reading.

  8. A growing majority of Canadians reject the idea that their country is accepting too many immigrants. This view is due in part because eight in ten believe that immigration is helping Canada’s economy.

    According to a recent survey by Environics Institute, done in October 2019 on Canadians' attitude towards immigration, there are some interesting findings, which I thought was important to post considering that it contradicts some of the participants on this forum. Here are some of the findings:

    Most important issues facing Canada today

    Environment: 24
    Economy: 22
    Healthcare: 9
    Poor Government/Leadership: 8
    Unemployment: 4
    Taxes: 4
    Crime/law and order: 2
    Immigration/Refugees: 2

    Agree-Disagree: “Overall, there is too much immigration in Canada.”

    Agree: 34%
    Disagree: 63%

    A positive view of current immigration levels is most widely expressed by Liberal Party (74%) and NDP (79%) supporters, followed by those who say they will vote for the Green Party (69%) or Bloc Quebecois (64%). Conservative Party supporters are more divided, with 51 percent agreeing that immigration levels are too high, compared with 45 percent who disagree.

    Agree-Disagree: “Overall, immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada.”

    Agree: 80%
    Disagree: 16%

    As on past surveys, attitudes about immigration and refugees differ across the population. Positive sentiments are most prevalent among younger Canadians and those with a university education. Negative views are most evident in Alberta, among Canadians ages 60 and older, and those without a high school diploma. In Quebec, despite the recent controversy over its new legislation banning religious dress, public opinion about immigrants is as positive if not more so than in other parts of the country.

    Agree-Disagree: “There are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values.”

    Agree: 50%
    Disagree: 43%

    Agree-Disagree: “Canada accepts too many immigrants from racial minority groups.”

    Agree: 29%
    Disagree: 64%

    Some portion of public resistance to immigration stems from negative attitudes towards newcomers with specific racial and ethnic backgrounds (predominantly non-white or racialized). This continues to be evident in current public sentiment, but much less so than in previous generations.

    Agreement with the statement is the minority view across the country, but most notably among Canadians 18 to 29 (21%), those with a university degree (19%) and supporters of the Federal NDP (13%). The view that Canada accepts too many immigrants from racial minorities is most evident among Canadians without a high school diploma (42%) and household incomes of less than $30,000 (40%).


    • Like 1

  9. 12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    There wouldn't be much point in stopping if the shortfall would be made up immediately by another producer.  With weaker environmental regulations governing the production, I might add.

    If you want to make this about asbestos, deliberately avoiding my point, go ahead.

    If you think Canada should go it alone against climate change, absorbing all the effects of ceasing to produce resources that account for over 10% of our GDP, with all the concomitant effects on the economy and employment, without having any effect whatsoever on climate change, I would just have to disagree.

    Canada would not be doing it alone. There are many European countries who are taking major steps in curbing their fossil fuel footprints and they are way ahead of Canada. Change doesn't happen suddenly and if you want to see change happen, then you should take the step, instead of waiting for everyone to do it first.


  10. On 11/1/2019 at 8:25 PM, bcsapper said:

    Only if every other country was producing asbestos too.

    So you would want Canada to continue to use asbestos if other countries were?

    Why this follower mentality, instead of a leader mentality?

    Canada, under a Conservative government, took lead in major environmental steps in the late 80s. It was Canada that kickstarted the push to reduce aerosol use, which ended up fixing the ozone layer. A success story that is not talked about.

  11. On 11/2/2019 at 6:26 AM, jacee said:

    I wouldn't say "nowhere". 

    As it stands right now, fossil fuel production is on life support, kept alive only by public subsidies. All Canadians have to do is shift some subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and it's all over: Renewables are then more profitable than fossil fuels, investments go where the profits are, and the free market works as it should.  

    The corporate welfare inflating fossil fuel profits has to end as it's interfering with the free market. The politicians in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry are the problem, using our money to artificially create profits that don't exist.

    Not sure why the so-called free-market proponents are not speaking out against the corporate welfare system OR are flat out in denial. Here are some of the largest current subsidies in Canada:

    Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
    Flow-through shares** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 265 million
    Direct spending & budgetary transfers*** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 112 million
    Crown royalty reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies CAD 1.162 billion
    Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industry Alberta Industry CAD 298 million
    Royalty reductions, including deep drilling and infrastructure credits British Columbia Oil and gas companies CAD 631 million
    Reduced tax for aviation fuel Ontario Aviation Industry CAD 292 million
    Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture Ontario Agricultural industry CAD 248 million
    Fuel tax exemptions and reductions  Quebec Industry and other consumers CAD 301 million



  12. 17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Technological advances got us into this mess, and they will get us out of it too.  We just need to be a bit more patient, as tons of brilliant people across the globe are working on the problem as we speak.  Luckily we still have some time.

    Even if we can't stop it in time, the technology we'll have in 50-100 years will be unfathomable to anything people today could ever even imagine.

    That's my hope. That technology will save us from what is obvious to me, which is the accelerated speed of change in our climate.

  13. 1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    The Boy Who Cried Bigot. That's you.

    Everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, if we went by your definition of the word, it would have no meaning aside from that. That's not what a bigot is, you wouldn't know a bigot if they slapped you in the face.

    Listen Yzermandius19,

    You can use whatever definition of bigot you want in order to deflect my clear criticism of Argus, et al. 

    The definition I am using for bigot is:

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
    especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
    I am not going to sit idle when I see someone dismissing, generalizing and demeaning a group or culture based on his/her ignorance towards them. I will continue to speak up when I see Argus call people "goat herders" or any other racist, demeaning, bigoted remark.
    I will speak up if I see this:

    Or this:


    People like Argus who summarily dismiss the entire culture as nothing more than a bunch of backwards goat-herders.

    All said, I will defend the right for all of these racists to share their ignorant and hateful thoughts, even if I don't agree with them.



  14. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    Projecting. You are the one who is the most intolerant of others views in this thread, you might be fooling yourself but plenty of us are on to you.

    I am intolerant of hate towards my fellow humans and I will speak up whenever I see people trying to normalize their bigotry. 

    Before you come running in with your tunnel vision, crying about how I'm some communist who wants to stop free speech; Even though I will speak up against bigots like Argus and taxme, I will defend their right to be able to express their bigotry and hatefulness.


  15. On 10/26/2019 at 10:19 AM, Argus said:

    And they are on welfare. Let's not forget that. The Syrians, like other refugees, have no job skills to speak of, and little or no language skills. What jobs they can get are for largely for unskilled labour. This is not a reflection on who they are as people, but merely the reality of transferring a largely rural folk from a third world country to another land with a vastly different culture and language and with an economy driven by technology and communications.

    Here is a report from Macleans. Only 25% of them are employed. And for the government sponsored refugees it's a mere 5%. Less than half the Syrian refugees have a high school diploma.


    We would be far better off using the money to take care of them back in Turkey than bringing them to Canada. It costs ten times more to fund a refugee in the West than it does back where they come from.

    You are not fooling anyone with your denial and the cherry picked data which does not back anything you say. 

    You have been using "goat herder" as a way to show your contempt and to demean brown/Muslim people for years. You have used it for more than just the wave of Syrian refugees that came in. 

    You're a bigot and a racist and it's easy to see how people like you are attracted to the PPC.


    • Like 1

  16. 6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    Yeah, I'm sure the NDP and Greens will form a coalition with the Conservatives, and I'm sure the PPC would form a coalition with the left leaning parties, that's totally going to happen. It's all up in the air, there is no telling who the loser parties prefer, or who their voters prefer, no indication whatsoever. Definitely can't make any assumptions about that.

    Listen to yourself, you can't honestly believe the nonsense you peddle. There is no chance any party outside the big 2 wins, even under proportional representation, either the Liberals or Conservatives have won the popular vote in every Canadian Federal Election with zero exceptions, and no third party has even come close to changing that. There is only one exception where the Liberals or Conservatives didn't both finish in the top two of the popular vote in 1993, and that was with a split Conservative party.

    So what you're saying is that under the current system, there is more of a chance for a minority group to have power and control over the majority and that's why you're not a fan of having each vote count as one. Gotcha.

    6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    Only one Conservative popular vote majority since the NDP came along, in 1984, when the Quebec popular vote went majority Conservative for one of the only two times in Canadian federal election history, both under Mulroney and never before or since. The Conservatives haven't won in Quebec since, and almost always lost in Quebec before that.

    So you were wrong. Take it like a champ, instead of the above.

    Here are my thoughts:

    The voting system and the dynamics we have now is dysfunctional. There is way too much power in Ontario/Quebec. I don't know why anyone defends it. We don't know what kind of dynamics will be created if PR comes into play. What we have now are stale, non-functioning bs parties who try to pander. How are the Cons different than the Libs? They're not. Real thoughts and innovative ideas are dead because of our system. I'm okay with seeing more 'extreme' parties like the Greens and PPC. 

    If we want to live in a true democracy, then Proportional Representation is necessary. Each vote must have the same power. However, we would need to limit the power the federal government has. People in each province should have more say in what is best for them, in their province, and how they like to function. For example: The federal government should not be in the business of forcing things like carbon tax or creating 'national' housing policies. At the same time, the feds should not have the power to force any province to run pipelines through it. The feds should stick to making foreign policy decisions, protecting our borders, make sure the highways/railways function, with broadband internet reaching all corners, regulate our immigration policies, and to regulate our currency. 

    If Alberta wants to squeeze every last drop of their shit oil, that's their business. But if they want to run the oil through B.C., then B.C. must agree to it. If they can't come to terms, then Alberta can start looking at negotiating with the territories up North or the States down south to get their pipelines. If that doesn't work, then you either find other ways of transporting or accept that it's bad business.


  17. 1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    Go look at all the past federal elections, especially any of them within the last 50 years, and note how many would result in a Conservative majority under PR, come back when you find even a single example. Bet you can't find even one since the NDP came along.


    But that's not the point. The point I made is that you assume that you know who will form a coalition. You don't know, but you want people to take your assumptions and predictions as facts.

    Under PR, parties outside of the big 2, which you lament regularly, will gain more power. I assume, since there is a better chance to win if you're not the big 2 (or 3), there will be more parties to choose from. Ideas outside of the usual will have more strength and more of a say. Like, for example, a party like PPC. Also, there would be less of a concentration on prioritizing what Quebec wants.

  18. Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

    One outlier does not disprove the rule. Best case scenario Conservatives win two extra seats, under most scenarios they would lose more seats than they gain, and the left would not have to worry about vote splitting, Conservatives could never form a coalition that results in a majority government and the left could.

    You have a lot of assumptions and predictions that you want everyone to accept as facts.

  • Create New...