Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Argus

Members
  • Content Count

    46,932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    137

Argus last won the day on January 19

Argus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,454 Excellent

About Argus

  • Rank
    I'm watching you!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Yes
  • Interests
    Peace, Order and Good Government

Recent Profile Visitors

78,517 profile views
  1. I"m not going to apologize for being better educated than you are, Rue. I read a considerable amount about how and why this system was set up. I'm guessing you read approximately nothing. All of the above is bullshit, except the part of about Canada outlawing it 26 years ago, which I had no reason to state since it was stated in the post I was replying to. You clearly didn't bother to research any of that because marital rape is indeed illegal in all those states. Hell, you didn't even need to research. Anyone with more than half a brain would know that California, the most liberal state in the union, would have laws against marital rape. Why would I? I wasn't the one who brought up marital rape in the first place. Of course few people want to accuse their spouse of marital rape. Some of those aren't even Muslim countries. Some great legal researcher you are. Others have rape laws which neither include nor exclude marital rape. Only a very few even mention it, such as Turkey, which used to be secular. So I will concede I was wrong to say "all". That was an error on my part. My point was replying to someone who brought it up. And 13 countries carry the death penalty for homosexuality. One guess how many are Muslim. No, because that would be moronic. Stop attributing absolutes to everything I say.
  2. I'm beginning to think English is your second language. Or else you simply have a colourful way to 'interpret' what other people say. You appear to be incapable of understanding conditional or qualified statements. To you, everything is an absolute with no distance between absolute yes and absolute no. If one points out that the major impetus behind the Nazis' rise was economic and the chaos in the streets then one must be absolutely rejecting that anti-semitism had any part in it. Even if no one says such a thing. If one suggests that we should be careful about bringing into Canada hundreds of thousands of people from areas of the world with extremely harsh social views, well then, one "hates' all people from those areas and from that religion and wants to destroy them. Then you rant in self-righteous fashion, condemning through an interpretation you alone create. Once again, your cognitive skills are sorely lacking. You conflate simple observation of people's deeply held religious views with equating emotions and logic. Your position is incoherent and is nothing but raw emotion ungoverned by intellect. The rest of what you write is drivel driven by your sanctimonious insistence that no one can judge any group for any reason even if acknowledging there are variations within that group.
  3. I think Piers Morgan says it all pretty succinctly. Spare me your 'patriotic' crocodile tears, Harry - you DIDN'T have to quit. You chose to ditch the Queen, the monarchy, your military comrades and your country… to become a royal Kardashian and keep Meghan happy Oh, I know, I know…the only accepted narrative, certainly on Twitter, is that the mean, beastly, racist media has driven out poor Harry and Meghan with our despicable antics. We shamefully refused to let them lecture us about the environment AND use private jets like taxis! And we had the audacity to think a $500,000 star-studded, baby-shower party in New York was a tad inappropriate given that Harry and Meghan were busy urging us on Twitter that same week to pay more attention to poor people. Oh, and we shockingly suggested that if you’re going to have the taxpayers fork out $3 million on refurbishing your home, you should probably not hide photos and details of your son's birth or stop the public taking your picture at Wimbledon. Yes, the 'bullying' media's treated them appallingly, and it's all because Meghan has a black mother – despite the fact we all fell over ourselves for 18 months to say how fantastic it was to have a bi-racial woman enter the Royal Family. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7907757/PIERS-MORGAN-Spare-crocodile-tears-Harry.html
  4. Uhm. No. The Nazis did not take power by demonizing Jews. Or rather that was merely a byproduct of their hyper nationalism. Basically they took power by promising an alternative to chaos, huge industrial expansion, jobs, and an end to the poverty and humiliation brought about by the previous war and the great depression. They could have done this without demonizing Jews and Gypsies and the rest, but they chose not to because it made things a little bit easier to suggest "Aryans" were superior (largely because most people don't know what an Aryan is). You also leave out a rather important aspect of this 'sweeping generalizations' thing. What was said about the Jews was wrong. Plain and simple. The lurid, nonsensical exaggerations and lies had nothing to do with reality. They were not 'sweeping, negative generalizations but outright slander. This is the difference you refuse to see. When I quote PEW research polls and other surveys into Muslim attitudes I am not lying nor distorting the truth. When I mention these attitudes and values in relation to whether it would be wise to bring in large numbers of such people into Canada without even attempting to discern how severe a particular applicant's social views are I am embracing logic, not lies or slander. Nor do I 'hate' Muslims. I merely feel contempt for the general social views and values of Muslim countries and have no desire to import them. Because logic and evidence plays no part in your thinking. Because the experience of Jews in Europe is unimportant. Because all the surveys and polls and reports are to be shrugged off. Sorry. I don't operate that way.
  5. The government did a lot of stuff in the 40s and 50s towards everyone, including exposing them to radiation and psychadelic drugs. That's unrelated to the residential schools, though. As they did in all other schools, regular and boarding. They volunteered to be coaches and boy scout leaders. This was not unique to the residential schools. Boarding schools were a regular part of the national culture, back then, and a lot of things happened in them to miserable kids far from home. Even Prince Charles has horrific memories of his time in boarding school.
  6. Nowhere near what it likely is for Muslims. After all, no Muslim country even has a sex crime unit among its police forces. Because no woman would dare report such a thing for fear of being cast off or killed by their own family for dishonoring them. Despite this the Marxist left in Canada is wholly committed to Islam, willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to encourage its spread.
  7. Nonsense. The main purpose of residential schools was to educate young people and thus allow them to join the rest of Canada, rather than keeping them out in the bushes out of sight the way you want to. Nor was it purposefully violent. It's legal to rape your wife in every Muslim country today. Women in today's Muslim world can't leave the house or make an appointment with their doctor without their husband's permission. And they are, by law, worth only one quarter of a man. It's legal to beat your wife today in the Muslim world. Gay people in the Muslim world are being beaten, tortured, imprisoned and executed TODAY throughout the Muslim world. On the contrary. Christianity allowed for that progress where Islam has not. Christianity allowed for different opinions and interpretations of the bible, and allowed people to discuss the meaning and morality of some of the old testament stuff to the point they decided it wasn't really Christian to do things like that. Such discussions are banned in the Muslim world, on pain of imprisonment or death. Because the Koran is considered the literal word of God anyone who disagrees with it is blaspheming and subject to dire punishment. Drivel. Muslim countries are nothing like what the West was in 1970. We didn't execute gays, then or ever. We didn't execute adulterers. We didn't put people in prison or threaten to kill them for wanting to change religions. You couldn't be killed in the West for blaspheme. Not by the government and not by rabid mobs of fundies. Nor was it ever codified in law that a woman's word was worth one quarter that of a man. The Muslim world would need enormous progress to get to where we were fifty years ago. But they're not progressing. They're not getting more liberal but more conservative, more strict in their observance of religious law.
  8. The Liberals are not going to spend any money on the military they can avoid spending. To them, the only purpose behind a budget item is votes. There's no votes for them in funding the military so they don't and won't.
  9. It's a bright man who holds the same opinion as me. Clearly Kenneth Whyte is a bright man. He says the Tories should concentrate on getting a good leader, not a bilingual leader. No more Joe Clarks or Andrew Scheers, but someone smart and capable and charismatic. Regardless of their language abilities. The lesson taken by Progressive Conservatives from Mr. Stanfield’s three successive defeats at the hands of Mr. Trudeau was that bilingualism was a leadership imperative. Anglo Bob managed just nine Quebec seats in three elections. Each of his successors – whether leading the Progressive Conservatives, the Canadian Alliance, or the Conservative Party of Canada – has been functionally bilingual (Reform Party leader Preston Manning was not). Yet with the exception of a Quebecker, Brian Mulroney, who won 58 and 63 Quebec seats in the 1984 and 1988 elections (more on him in a moment), none of Anglo Bob’s bilingual successors improved much on his record. Election after election, Conservatives choose bilingual leaders with an eye to cracking the Quebec electorate. Election after election, they fail. In 15 attempts since the end of the Diefenbaker/Pearson era, bilingual non-Quebeckers leading the Conservative, Progressive Conservative, or the Canadian Alliance parties have won 66 seats in Quebec, an average 4.4 a party per outing. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-do-you-need-to-be-bilingual-to-be-pm-pas-du-tout/
  10. Wasn't Christians that invaded the Muslim world, but the reverse. Most wars in Europe or by Europeans were about money and power, not religion. You continue to put the horse in front of the cart. The US, and you're mainly talking about them, don't send troops somewhere to conquer and steal but to settle violence already in place. If the Iraqis had never invaded Kuwait and the Afghanis hadn't harbored terrorists that attacked America there'd have been way fewer US troops there. If the Iraqis hadn't been completely incompetent the US and other western countries would not have had to come back to defeat ISIS.
  11. Because it has been throughout history. At home. Christian nations have virtually no troops in the middle east.
  12. Nor do they have the ability to do so.
  13. The Left is ever generous with other people's money. And it's not 5%. We're getting 50k asylum claims a year vs 320k immigrants. Except the way it works is that some portion of that 320k are actually refugees. Also the ones whose claims are turned down just stay anyway. So it's likely something around 15% or more.
  14. Muslims have been attacking all non-Muslim neighbours since Islam was founded. Ask the Hindus of northern India - now called Pakistan. Ask the Egyptians and Syrians and Lebanese and Turks, who are now Muslims but who used to be Christians. Ask Northern Africans taken in the thousand year old slave trades. Muslim nations stopped attacking their non-Muslim neighbors only when they lost the military ability to do so. And if, tomorrow there was some kind of plague which killed off much of the population of Europe (and America) and rendered their civilizations helpless, but somehow missed the Muslim world, you can be damned sure they'd be invading the next day. The whole point and purpose of Islam is to take over the world by any means necessary. That's the driving force behind the religion. There is the land of peace - ie, Muslim controlled countries, and the lands of war - ie, non-Muslim controlled countries. And there will be struggle everlasting until the latter becomes the former.
×
×
  • Create New...