Leaderboard

I haven't made Trump the victim, I've stated that the Girl Guide media rep is taking a political stance - which she clearly is. Look at her history and her experience, she's a professional and knows exactly what angle she's taking. Do you disagree that making a press statement against Trump is a political statement. Seriously dude, your posts are looking more like Bubbers and Impact's every day - pull yourself together, you're a mod, not a troll.

Conservative candidate Steven Blaney said: Do you think a terrorist who swears an Oath of Citizenship and then murders innocent people should be allowed to retain his Canadian citizenship? Well, Liberal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen thinks so. Indeed, Justin Trudeau and his Liberals want to return Canadian citizenship to Zakaria Amara, a convicted terrorist. I disagree with him. I strongly believe citizenship revocation has to be an option for convicted terrorists holding dual citizenship who have come to our country to kill Canadians. That is why in 2015, our Conservative government passed bill C-24 which allows for the revocation of citizenship for those immigrant citizens who have committed acts of terrorism. Justin Trudeau and his liberals are about to change that. The first duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe, not to seek fame and be adored. --Steven Blaney, MP What do you think?

What was the part you said earlier about discussing with "civility"? Think you missed that one.

It's a public forum, not "your thread". Absolutely nothing is yours here.

The reasoning behind the ban for these specific countries has been discussed here the forum numerous times already. If you don't get that, or refuse to accept facts there's no point discussing further with you. This is a waste of time.

Why ? It's the same border that existed before President Trump. People were denied entry for all kinds of reasons.

Agreed. That potential exists and until Islamophobia is defined you have a legitimate concern to say that...but that is my opinion and as you know on this forum I eventually will piss you off if I have not already....but not on purpose...only for the sake of debate.

Are you saying that the super hornet has more range than the F-35...because that is not what both companies are advertising, nor is the Canadian airforce stats for it's aircraft.... CF-18 stats are is 330 km on a combat radius, and a 3330 km ferry range no wpns F-35 stats are 1407 km combat radius air to air config and 1158 kms for interdiction mission.....with a ferry range of 2220 km on internal fuel no wpns.... Note that these numbers would increase if the added external fuel tanks.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II You mention the twin engine safety model, one that at one time was true and played a role in our choice of the F-18, however safety ratings on single engine aircraft have improved dramatically to the point they are better or on par with twin engine safety records....Having multi engines does not mean your that much safer over the artic...infact many multi engine aircraft have met their fate in the arctic, including aircraft with 4 engines.....

The second chamber of the Dutch parliament has 150 members elected from a single nationwide constituency using proportional representation without any thresholds. Seems to me like the most democratic election-system thinkable, don't you agree? As 1/150 of the votes is enough to gain representation, all kinds of single-issue parties have easy access to parliament. For example the aforementioned animal rights party. There is also another party, a Calvinist-party, which campaigns on the platform of disenfrancising all women. As for the election-result, prior to the election there was a coalition of Liberals and the Social Democrats which gained 5 years ago 41 seats with 26% of the votes for the Liberals and 38 seats with 25% of the votesfor the Social Democrats. This time the Liberals gained 33 seats with 21% of the votes and the Social Democrtas were hammered into oblivion with 9 seats with 6% of the votes. The big news of the election was not how Wilders's partry didn't do as well as expected when they still made progress. The news was how the government was totally and utterly rejected. Building a new coalition could take quite a while.

It would be regrettable if all this current 'Islamophobia' is wasted by merely sitting around when this could be made into Law.

Indeed. Let those who want America to disarm itself stand downrange of a Grad battery...they're really cheap. And they shoot toy rockets!

Comparing what the US spends to what others spend is a mugs game since spending doesn't translate to actual military power. Russia and China and North Korea and just about every other non-European country spend way, way less on salaries and benefits for the soldiers they draft. That gives them a lot more bang for the buck. Most of the money the US (and Canada) spends on its military is for salaries and benefits.

The Japanese??? Those sandal wearing gold fish tenders? Pshhaw! Flimshaw!

Turkey's Foreign Ministers threatens religious war in Europe after Dutch election. Nice fellow. I'm sure he meant religious war in the kindest way.

While Blaney is generally a blithering idiot and totally unfit to be PM, he is absolutely right about the first duty of this or any government: the safety and security of the nation must be the very first priority. That takes many forms domestically and abroad, including military strength, strong alliances, independent police, the importance of the independent judiciary, due process and most importantly the rule of law. A very major reason that people come to Canada as immigrants, and a very major reason for our quality of life, is that it is a relatively safe place on this fractious, uncertain and dangerous planet.. We wank on about 'Canadian values' all the time. Well, safety and security is right at the forefront of a short list. We will get ourselves in serious trouble if we forget that.

You are our neighbors, so of course we are going to have opinions. Just like we talk about those in other provinces, those living on the other side of town, or those right next door. We are going to bitch because you forgot to return that power tool you borrowed last week or that noisy your kid hangs out with in the driveway playing basketball, but you're also a close friend and we wouldn't hesitate to look after the house/kids when you get that emergency call that your mother was rushed to the hospital. Yes, we are nosy neighbors and are going to comment on what you do and even get into the occasional spat when you leave your trashcan in our driveway, but don't move away because we will miss you.

Well, if I had to choose a religion to believe in, I'd probably pick a warrior's religion over a peasant's religion...

Coming in tied for 2nd place in a 6+ party system is hardly that strong of an electoral rebuke. Next election to watch is France, where Marine Le Pen is set to do well in the first round of voting.

You clearly miss the point.

In times or war, there's no excuse for attacking your own country on behalf of or in support of another country/countries, unless you're a traitor.

Steven Blaney's only missed the target by 6 decades or so and he also forgot to include governments quests for wealth and power. Most governments including ours have failed horribly in their duty to not put their citizens in the way of some very harmful blowback - with foreign policies that are so misguided and have created so much long-term wide-spread damage that I'm quite certain they will one day be regarded as the worst sort of crime that can be committed against humanity. What I mean specifically is the creation and maintenance of puppet dictatorships, which are simply terrorists that wear a uniform, over other people in their lands. I think the fallout from this is even more toxic to a human society than radiation is to a human being. At he moment I think the never-ending search for more of the same by too many governments will continue to make things worse.

This is how the Left engages in argument. First, it dismisses out of hand any organization which they perceive to be right of center, then they ask you for other evidence - as if left of centre organizations are likely to be producing such things. And in the unlikely event a left of centre organization produces such evidence, such as, say, the CBC and Toronto Start producing polls showing the great majority of Canadians want values testing for immigrants, they simply dismiss it anyway. The Frasier Institute produces some extremely well thought out, and documented reports on a variety of issues, a very few of which point out the costs of immigration, and the Left dismisses them as horrible, evil people not to be trusted... As for Immigration Watch. I'll admit they put out a couple of dumb flyers, but for the most part all you'll find on their site are stories and studies from media, all clearly cited and linked.

Really ? I will let all the American Indian tribes know this....it will come as a surprise. My ancestors were not "immigrants"....they were slaves forced to believe it. So you still haven't explained why so many immigrants still want to go to Trump's evil America. Do you mean Silicon Valley ? Illegals are deported from there too.

That's what Trump said as opposed to something else. The video confirms this.

Because Iran is a known state sponsor of "terrorism" in opposition to U.S. and allied interests. Travel bans are not the same as illegal incarceration of embassy staff....in fact...they are quite different. So if the U.S. (or Canada...see Haiti) continues its policies, it will get more emigres than it got before? Why were there so many immigrants to the U.S. before messing around with Iran and other nations ? The U.S. is the #1 destination for immigrants in the world for economic reasons, and that includes Canadians. See above....the U.S. also deports millions and millions of illegal or undesired immigrants.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you....they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." ---President Trump

No, not lie. There are many reasons for going or not going somewhere. Aren't you currently arguing about tourism dropping in western europe and the reason for that ? What I'm saying is that they could've said to the kids and parents "we're going to Banff, Tofino or Peggy's cove this year", instead they chose the route of "president Trump hates brown people, so some of you might get stopped at the border". Therefore, they made it what they wanted to make it - political, and what they're teaching these young girls is that claiming victim status is more noble than looking for a better solution and moving on.

Saudi Arabia is nice, I hear.

There's not much to discuss, some people look for solutions, many others take comfort in the victim role. The victim role can take away accountability and/or provide a passive aggressive statement. Everything we've seen on the news is based around fear and victims - ho hum! Ashley Judd has been antagonizing Trump supporters every chance she gets, then someone confronts her and all of a sudden, she's a victim in need of a safe space. Why is she a victim? Because, like all victims, they get something out of it. This girl guide thing is a political statement, nothing more - "Look what the mean old president Trump is doing to these poor girls". As I said, Isn't it obvious?

Isn't it obvious?

You clearly have no understanding of what stoning entails, who is punished, who carries out the stoning and what rules are associated with stoning...eg, there is actually a certain size stone that is acceptable - you should probably watch a stoning sometime.

To believe stats, one must believe the source, believe the methods used in obtaining stats and believe the word of those questioned. Some lean a little to your side, some to mine - fair enough, but if your argument is that in a country like Egypt, 57% of the entire population believes that a teenage girl should be buried up to her shoulders and have rocks, small rocks as to not kill her too quickly, thrown at her head until she is dead - well, I think I'll stick with my assessment.

I don't object to being called "anti" Islamic, I am. I don't believe in women as second (or lower) class people, I don't believe girls should be stoned for adultery, I don't believe gays should be executed, honour killings - so on and so forth, I don't believe in these things that 80 or 90% of muslims believe. So, I guess it is fair to say that I'm "Anti" Islamic. I don't want any of that philosophy creeping into Canada. Because I'm not actually afraid of muslims, I don't consider myself "Islamaphobic", however the expression of being Anti-Islamic is perceived (or twisted) by the left as Islamaphobia for one simple reason - to downplay and belittle the Idea. The use of the word "phobia" (as in homophobia) in these cases, is simply to pivot the conversation from "dislike" to "fear" - essentially the left pivoting from defence (defending Islam) to offence (your fear is irrational).

Care to include the stats on how many civilians killed since 9-11 by western-led forces?

I'm pretty sure if Kevin O'Leary wasn't so defiantly liberal on all social issues, including immigration, he would sweep the vote, and then sweep Trudeau out of office.

Yes...it is "OK", and the sovereign right of any nation to do so as it sees fit. Should Canadians be banned because it granted asylum and welfare payments to an Algerian terrorist who conspired to blow up LAX ? The U.S. is not responsible for domestic persecutions in other nations and admits entry to refugees/immigrants with strict limits, just as Canada does.

How could Trump do that when his supporters are so proud of him?

I'm really glad to hear you've already given up. That's great news.

What's so complicated about it? Is like nobody ever heard of doing unto others as they'd have done to them. A child usually has this figured out before they graduate from kindergarten.

The difficulty is the unwillingness to understand. Your analogy is okay but isn't Dave also one of the cops? In any case I think Dave is also an abusive chronic drunk with friends that have no objection to him driving when falling down drunk and heavily armed. We're just as at fault which is why Canada has it coming too.

Maybe we should screen new Canadians for their neediness for safe spaces free of criticism and principles. That said we should probably encourage new Canadians to speak truth to the cowards that provide those spaces.

The hottest lady in punk.

Marine fisheries management. The two management styles stem from both our constitutions. The U.S. mode is vastly superior because each state is responsible for managing their own fisheries. In Canada, Ottawa is in charge. The closer the mangers are to the fishery and the people who depend on it the greater the accountability and transparency. Ottawa is 1500 miles from the nearest ocean and it shows.

I'd argue there's a pretty healthy bbq/smoked fish culture out on the west coast.

Culture is defined by Merriam Webster as "the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time" Don't know if this has been covered yet, but for me, one important cultural difference between ourselves and the States is related to gun ownership and use. In the States a main reason for owning a gun seems to be self-protection (either from bad guys, or the government); in Canada, the main reason for owning a gun seems to be actual hunting of animals, or as a hobbyist. In the States, there is a much made of 'standing one's ground' and 'self-defense'; in Canada, I don't hear that much at all. I don't know if gun ownership is more prevalent in the States (by capita) than in Canada, or if it's just more obvious, but I know more Americans who own guns than I do Canadians.

I missed all the infighting here. But to the topic, there is NO actual difference in people in general from ANY different country. What MAKES us different is to the LAWS established. Canada is MORE conservative in ALL aspects because (1) we are defaulted to be founded on a country that derived its constitution by specific colonial interests who represented people who resisted self-definition, as the U.S. did. The English Loyalists of a 'dictatorial' (in principle) Monarchy by those who most selfishly profited by their Nationalistic belief in their 'superiority' over the average person suggests they are NOT in principle 'democratic' and their own 'superiority' complex is based on irrational cultural identity. (2) The French Catholics who were abandoned by France via their own "Republican" revolution that resisted religious intolerance via similar 'dictatorial' beliefs in Kings and Queens AND their strict adherence to a Church organ that also believed they have a supreme authority granted by their god through their 'supreme' Pope. (3) The utility of supporting a distinct 'respect' for differentiating Aboriginals as though they were at least a distinct 'natural' essence, but as animals; the English and French only utilizes granting them similar position of the same kind of Nationalism they believe of themselves as it functions to CONTROL all others to be committed to their own ESTABLISHED power through the years. Our Constitution, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically has been designed to permanently SAVE these main three selective groups under the guise of Multiculturalism but ONLY for the sake of those English and French 'aristocratic' established in Ontario and Quebec mainly. Their use of (3) above is NOT out of respect for Aboriginals as it is NOT for ALL other cultures nor differences in other similar ethnic definitions (like sex or gender). The utility is to falsely create an illusion of friendly love for all cultures ONLY to SAVE their own from being naturally defeated. In contrast, the Americans have the First Amendment clause which though is still NOT sufficient due to similar culturally discriminating groups there who have reinterpreted less significance to the role of religion. Yet, while the U.S. is most apparent to seem more discriminating in ethnic differences, this is ONLY by default of the very fact that the world DOES look at them most closely. They are MORE apparent for their system and so appears to be most troubled in regards to Nationalistic fervor. The reality is just the opposite though. It is the effect of the world who IS more discriminatory who notices them precisely because they are most relatively "honest" about their differing views. But where problems get actually solved, being most apparent IS the first step. All other countries hide their own more hateful discrimination through their less 'free' media. It makes them actually MORE liberal than any other country. Canada is WAY more conservative by contrast in terms of economics AND social concerns. It just has measures to both hide them through more deceptive means of propaganda. It props up interest group issues as more prevalent with laws that enable ease at censuring. Our media in the 'free' arena is also a very REAL monopoly (by the actual owners) and use tactics that in the U.S. get exposed more readily --- making the U.S. appear more troubled than they actually are.

I'm an Earthling and yeah, we can be real sphincters when we put our minds to it.

I am Caucasian, from a long line of Caucasians. I don't see that Caucasians are any less violent than any other skin color, personally. Taking our lily-white asses into countries and telling them they need our military help isn't exactly pacifist. Regularly killing off our co-Caucasians in our own countries also doesn't speak to our non-violent nature. A lot of the technology in use in the world today was invented or improved upon by the yellow-skin toned people. A lot of brown people from India are taking over technology in our modern age. What else ya got?

It seems as if a lot of people are missing the point of the OP. She admits she was fed up with the U.S. and therefore moved to Canada, expecting to find it as so many Canadians try so hard to portray it -- as a kinder, gentler, more caring/tolerant nation. And she found it wasn't true. She didn't expect to be loved just because she was an American; what she expected was not to be criticized and met with contempt just because she was an American. In other words, the reality is quite different from the myth. So all this 'America is this, that, or the other thing et al' has nothing to do with anything as it's Canada's/Canadians' reality vs. how it's portrayed that's the issue. Americans don't make the claims that so many Canadians do. Furthermore, I can't understand why Texas is often mentioned with such contempt. I'm guessing people who make such comments have never actually been there and haven't experienced the hospitality that so many Texans offer. There's a lot of ignorance in this world, and the internet all too often seems to be a means to perpetuate it. Canadians' smug anti-Americanism says a lot more about them than it does Canadians* Americans. And I agree with the author. Anyone moving to Canada expecting life to be better than it is in the States will likely be disappointed. *Edited to fix error.