Leaderboard

I hope she does go after them as there was no reason for manhandling her like that. She also denies that she is a member of some 'far right' group, I also think there's a lot more in the French media we don't see. What about the $164 million that's been spent on illegal immigrants so far? - is not a racist question and how Trudeau plans to finance this ongoing situation is something provinces would like to know too. Saw this on twitter: Woman Trudeau insulted/harassed is a 74 year old retired nurse Says she went to the event after seeing an ad in the paper & that she has never been a spokesperson for the group Storm Alliance as alleged. English translation of the event is not accurate IMO but Would MSM spin?

As long as they don't expect answers to their questions. https://torontosun.com/2017/09/27/transparent-trudeau-liberal-government-worse-than-harper-according-to-access-to-information-audit/wcm/ab36af22-9d4e-4aab-bcc9-d3be66bd7bf2 Not quite. She only brings up the 'white Quebecers' which is mistranslated, btw, after he starts calling her intolerant and saying she and her views have no place in Canada. The term she used is apparently one commonly used by separatists . It is basically the 'puere lain Quebecer' thing. Canada is not a big country. About 90% of Canadians live in a strip of land within 100 miles of the US border. And 99% of immigrants wind up in this same strip. It costs 10-20 times more to shelter a refugee in Canada than it does in one of those poor nations. The cost of bringing over all those refugees from Turkish refugee camps would have paid to take care of a lot more people over there if we'd used it in that way. Then those people would be there and ready to go home when the war ends next year.

And once again , you missed the entire point of what I said and decided to refute something that wasn't my argument. This is a very bad habit of your's, both with myself and others. My argument was not that "No Muslims have ever condemned terrorism." My argument was that they will have trouble refuting terrorist ideology using the Koran because the Koran contains the very commands that terrorists are following. Slow clap at the excellent attempt to detract and paint me falsely, though

Bernier's position on supply management/trade, immigration is compatible with mine. I'm interested.

I'm sure Scheer is a nice enough guy. But what does he represent that's substantially different from the Trudeau government's policy approach? Scheer might be willing to round off the rougher edges of the current regime's policies but isn't likely willing to boldly go where our conventional mainstream parties have refused to tread, or in other words, to promote rational populism. "Stay the course with a few tweaks" is not in my opinion what this country needs at this point in its history. At least if Canadians have a clear and obvious alternative at the ballot box we'll all have to accept the result if voters opt for the status quo, or a watered down version thereof.

I'm an optimist. I'm seeing this development as positive. As I said in another post, Scheer as PM would be Trudeau redux. That scenario makes me gag.

According to the polls there are many millions of Muslims just in Egypt who believe adulterers, blasphemers and apostates should be killed. I consider them to be extremists. Do you?

I absolutely hope she pursues action and challenges those who have slagged and degraded her. I watched an English-language news broadcast earlier this week where the anchor emphatically proclaimed that the woman "IS a racist" (anchor's emphasis on "IS") due to her alleged membership in a far right, anti-illegal/irregular migrant group. Even if the woman does belong to such a group, which reportedly she denies is the case, how could this undermine her right to speak out on an issue of public policy in a country where the Charter purportedly protects the freedoms of expression and association. And why would association with such a group necessarily deem one a racist anyway? I guess that for our shrill progressives the Charter is only applicable where their own pet causes are concerned. She should definitely seek redress.

Same reason Cuba and Venezuela and similar countries have seats at the UNHRC. What a joke.

Utter drivel. You clearly know nothing about Canada's history. Something begun long before Harper and which continues today under Trudeau. This was going to be the open government which returned power to MPs. Well, MPs have no power, in the House or in committees, and the government is less open than Harper's according to its own information commissioner.

If they really wanted to condemn those who do, they would turn in their violent extremist Saudi imams and get rid of all the extremist writings in their schools and mosques. They would make it clear to all their followers that jihad is not violent struggle against non-believers. If they really wanted peaceful co-existence, they would not establish enclaves in all countries of the world where non-Muslims are not welcome and women are harrassed and followed and beaten for not "dressing modestly." Polls would not show that the majority of Muslims world-wide want death for those who convert from Islam, death for apostates and anyone who doesn't show proper respect for their prophet. Do you know how many people showed up for the missing Edmonton woman Nadia Atwi's second search party? I do. Because one of my friends was one of four (4) white women who showed up to search for her. Where was her family and community? No, I think there is a lot more extremism in Islam than the 100,000 you estimate. But that's because you only associate violence with extremism. For myself and many others, the prevalence of violent views in Islam is troubling. But not apparently for Muslims or their supporters.

A Journal de Montreal opinion piece describes Trudeau as becoming "fou", meaning crazy as he responded loudly to the woman. It was a spectacle, not something you would expect from a Canadian Prime Minister.

He was very derogatory only giving liberal talking points as answers. I sure agree with Michelle Rempel's call for civility, which, sorry to say, doesn't fit withTrudeau's plan. As she said, "I don't expect to be labelled with some sort of disparaging remark when I stand up in the House of Commons and ask ... how much something is going to cost." Calling someone a racist or bigot is nothing but an attempt to end the debate. It is necessary to have a debate on a Immigration whichis a matter of public policy so a cost/benefit analysis is more than appropriate and should not be deemed racist.

Some experts disagree with me, yes. Others do not. I'm inclined to go with the reasons that terrorists themselves give for doing things - to expand Islam, through violence and terror throughout the world and establish a Caliphate according to the directives of Islam, as laid out in the Koran. I'm well aware of Canada's/Trudeau's stance that terrorists just need hugs and poetry and millions of dollars and maybe a little sing-along. I don't subscribe to the same warm fuzzies towards terrorists as you do.

Why, it was oK... Bernier made a mistaking in calling his former colleages/supporters morally corrupt. He should've taken the high road, not the low road making a more dignified departure.

The timing isn’t helpful, less than a year from an election and with the Conservatives in a statistical tie with the Liberals in most polls. Mr. Trudeau suddenly seems vulnerable. You sense a broad swath of the public has tired of the self-righteous, morally superior tone the Liberals have set, the ceaseless displays of virtue signalling. You can hear Canadians moaning: Just give us a normal government for heaven’s sake. ... The party’s immigration critic, Michelle Rempel, this week made a compelling and rational case for a review of the policies guiding the treatment of asylum seekers entering into the country. She says the Tories will put in place a “fair, orderly and compassionate system” that also respects the government’s ability to pay for it – something that is not the case now. Only after consulting with Canadians will the party talk about new immigration levels. I think if the party can build on what Rempel started and make it known they understand the concerns of the 49% of Canadians who think there's too much immigration, but without going too far as to seem like they're hostile towards immigrants, they can really do a lot here. They will need to emphasis this in order to lower the attraction of Bernier's new party. They'll be able to make the case "Do you want to waste your vote on this protest party and give the country to the virtue signaling Trudeau again or stay with us and get real changes?" https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-bernier-headache-is-just-beginning/

Canada will now accept 17,000 applications under Parents and Grandparents Program in 2018 so placing a higher burden on Canadians tax payers and our already overburdened health system. https://www.cicnews.com/2018/08/canada-will-now-accept-17000-applications-under-parents-and-grandparents-program-in-2018-0810997.html#gs.a3uVFgo

Harper understood and understands. But his ideology was pragmatism. He understood that if he occupied the centre he would get all the right of centre votes, and still appeal to centrist voters. In fact, given how the Liberals have shifted to the Left, the smart move for the Tories is to move a little further left, reassuring centrists while also offering an array of mostly centre/centre right policies. Moving rightward would not make any political sense. Harper understands this. And the problem with trying to discuss immigration issues is that they're complicated and not made for sound bytes. Not, at least, from the right side of the spectrum. Which makes it very hard to communicate your position to the public at large in the face of hostility from the media, and left of centre parties and activists screaming "Racism! Intolerance! Xenophobia!" I think Rempel was starting to ease into that with her announcement of a Tory immigration policy change and that the numbers and types ought to be set for Canada's needs and out of political expediency. Of course what the media wanted to know is "Are you going to lower immigration numbers?" Which, of course, she would not answer. You can call that equivocating, but it fits with the idea numbers shouldn't be set for political expediency, and doesn't allow the party to be portrayed as anti-immigrant before an election.

I don't think the 2000 election presents a good example for comparison. The Alliance Party was mainly a regional party grounded in its Reform support in Western Canada and was too associated with social conservatism to appeal to a lot of moderate voters, while the BQ, which won 44 seats, was explicitly a regionally based party, fielding candidates only in Quebec. Bernier's new party is aimed at appealing to voters across the political spectrum and across Canada. I think there's a lot of fatigue with Trudeau's brand and the CPC under Scheer seems to be treading water while the NDP remains, well, listless, disconnected and hopeless. And the BQ has almost disappeared as a political force. There is no other party or movement in Canada that reflects pan-Canadian populist concerns on many issues and in this vacuum Bernier's group might appeal more to voters than many might assume to be the case. An article in yesterday's Globe and Mail indicated that Bernier retains strong grassroots support among CPC members. If there's a substantial movement of these supporters to Bernier's group in conjunction with disillusioned Lib and NDP voters, many of whom according to polling are receptive to Bernier's views, the Canadian political landscape could face a considerable shakeup. And the "none-of-the-above" voters who shun the traditional mainstream parties as being incorrigibly corrupt and/or disconnected from the public mood might at last have something new to support. The trick for Bernier at this point will be to avoid any association with social conservatism, the appeal to which sabotaged prior efforts to attract centre and centre-right voters to alternative parties.

Meh. In other words, there will be no more real conservatives! What we'll be settling for will be lukewarm-conservative-liberal-lite - that will be the new "conservatives?" What about the voice for REAL conservatives? We'll just fade away? Depends from what angle you're looking. I could say the same thing about anyone who's pandering to political correctness. I could understand a liberal going all politically-correct (that's in his dna).....but for someone who's supposed to be a conservative? That doesn't compute. We conservatives know that political correctness is insanity - look at the mess we're in now! So, looking at it from where I'm coming from - I'd say they don't care enough to put the interest of the country ahead of their own.

Scheer is not Trudeau by a long shot. The problem is the Conservative Party largely ignores its conservative base because they have nowhere else to go. I mean, are people concerned about immigration and refugees going to vote Liberal in protest? So they tuck those people safely in the 'won' column, and work to get others from the mainstream. And that means moving further to the left. You can complain about this strategy, and I do, but it's realistic. Opposing immigration, or even calling for lower numbers is extremely risky given the nature of our progressive media. I mean, just look at the reaction to Bernier for even daring to suggest there could be too much diversity, which, by inference only, was seen as perhaps questioning immigration. Okay, this would give them somewhere else to go. I concede the point. That might well have an impact on Conservative party policy on certain matters. But if Bernier actually succeeds in attracting large numbers of mostly conservative voters the only people who will be celebrating will be the Liberals. I guarantee you the people in the PMO are high-fiving each other, laughing, clapping at every mention of his name, and popping Champaign corks at this news. So you might want to consider if you ought to be celebrating too.

I am going out on a limb here. I have not seen anything that meets the threshold for conviction in an impeachment process. My understanding is the high crime or misdemeanour must constitute a threat to the democratic institutions of the republic, not a run of the mill felony.

Because Trump did make health care better....there is no more ACA income tax penalty for those who do not have health insurance. The government is not required to provide health care...it is not a right of citizenship...not even in Canada.

Turdeau does' nt care about your grandkids. He has dady's money plus ours

He's got my support. Don't count on a Trudeau victory in 2019. Bernier will pull support from all three conventional parties. Given political volatility in his home province, he could sweep the place, which at the very least would likely deny the Libs a majority. A minority parliament with a governing CPC-Bernier coalition might be just the right solution for Canada at this time. Putting issues like immigration and refugee policy and identity politics squarely in the electoral debate will in my opinion advance the integrity of Canadian democracy.

If we had proportional rep I would probably vote for a new party Bernier starts, but given our current election system I think the only people who would be happy about it would be the Liberals and NDP.

this is exactly how the NDP got elected in Alberta. Splitting the right vote is a HUGE mistake.

I don't cite hooey from the 6th century, I cite pertinent, relevant facts. Do you think that Christians think of the things that "Jesus did" as hooey? As an example of how to behave? Or as things that they should refrain from? People still wear "WWJD" bracelets 2,000 years after his death so that was just a rhetorical question fyi. If people word "WWMD" bracelets what kind of things do you think they'd be up to? Do you think that they would be committing war crimes or feeding lepers? It would be interesting to see how much you know about the topic seeing as you have such a strong opinion.

Sponsorship doesn't matter because the sponsors are not responsible for health care costs. But yes, we're talking about elderly people being sponsored by their immigrant children here in Canada.

I don't know why you're citing an American source for this? The Canadian government's site for newcomers states: "If you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, you may apply for public health insurance. With it, you don’t have to pay for most health-care services." The only restriction that can be applied, as is done in some provinces, is the imposition of a three month waiting period for eligibility. As sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents, most qualify from the outset, or near outset, for the same coverage that's available to Canadian citizens. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html

No according to Rue you support Islamic extremism, trying to justify Islamic extremism and attack anyone who challenges it as being "anti-Muslim" and have made it a point on this forum to do that repeatedly as well as make sweeping false and negative representations of Jews, Israelis, Christians, my words, Dong on the Porch's words, and engage in transparent, shallow, subjective sound bites for Iran with your colleague "Marcus". There now, feel free to misrepresent that as well. Lol. Do start a thread when you have a chance as to the attack in France today by a man with a knife yelling Allah Akbar and explain how if someone states that they are anti Muslim. Also do start a thread suggesting that the resurfaced leader of ISIL is calling on Muslims around the world to engage in terrorist attacks against non Muslims, including here in Canada, and how if I point that out I am anti Muslim. Also do explain how someone who is anti religious extremism particularly the kind of religious extremism that promotes terrrorism, that makes them anti Muslim. Do explain how Islam is synonomous with terrorism. You keep suggesting to all it is because you state if one challenges Muslim extremism and terrorism, it makes them anti Muslim. You are using all Muslims as a shield, to hide behind, to justify Muslim extremism. You and Marcus do this in each and every post portraying yourselves as defenders of Islam while your words reek of support and apology for Islamic terrorism complete with the stereotypical buzz words against Jews, Christians, anyone who disagrees with you. You no more support or defend Muslims than you do anyone else who does not agree with you. Run along and play couch warrior with someone else I have more important things to do like take out a terrorist before he bravely attacks a civilian. Regards Rue the Rappin Jew lol defender of Muhammed he want everyone dead who you playin wit son you wanna diddle wit a gun problem is you need permission from your wife to even get a kitchen knife look at how tuff he is but he sits down to wiz yes suh he tink he bring fear to my heart cuz he likes tuh fart spppt and pfft he say to dah Jew yah yah what else is new he screams Allah Akbar but always from afar behind a nice Anglo soundin name yah dats duh game Scott Fitzgerald dah third posing as an Arab assassin how absurd such a gift yah write jus like Taylor Swift yah it gives me such fright bein threated by a terrorist transvesite yassuh I gonna go hide cuz you dun open my eyes all wide lol you and Marcus you know where tah find this Jewish carcus

Actually, brimstone is sulfur. Sulfur is #16 on the Periodic Table (atomic weight). One of the Chalcogen elements (oxygen family). It's found in the crust. The core of the Earth is mostly nickle-iron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

In fairness I don't think it's him alone who caused it. Outside influences are at play as well, including Soros with his Open Societies foundation who have partnered with the Trudeau Liberals on immigration policy. Of course it's supposed to be about sponsored immigrants but I find it interesting that Trudeau made his infamous tweet shortly after this partnership was formed. In my opinion Soros should be allowed zero influence on Canadian immigration matters.

So here we are at the end of the Russian gate hunt with nothing to show for it except financial fraud by two former trump associate. It all started with Russia and now it ends with white collar crime that has nothing to do with Russia. Ya lost the 2016 election fair and square, just get over it and and move on. We didn't elect trump because he was an upstanding human being, we elected him because this garbage heap of a person was the only one standing up for middle america. You can thank the elitist liberals for the loss in 2016.

We are a long way from any articles of impeachment against President Trump, and even if it does happen, they will be the same kind of distraction that was Bill Clinton's impeachment. Even after all that, no American president has ever been found guilty in the Senate and "removed" from office. So it would manifest itself with a wimper, just in time for the next presidential election cycle where Americans will do it all over again. The U.S. has seen all this before....sick presidents...dying presidents...assassinated presidents...impeached presidents...resigned president. It got so bad for LBJ that he actually went on national television and announced that he would not seek or accept his party's nomination for another term in office. There is nothing particularly special about President Trump and whatever his fate may be...for him or his supporters. Like I've been saying for a long time....Donald Trump is just another American president....there will be others that follow him.

Plus, he has no idea how to spell "just desserts". But hey

Oh, I know. What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that even though this is what is taught to young and old, that it has absolutely no effect on their behaviour whatsoever. To claim that Islamic terrorism has no connection to the religion is to deny that Islam is much more than a religion - it's a religion, it's a social system, it's a political system - all in one that demands compliance of believers and non-believers to all 3.

1.) You say she can freely express herself and yet you denigrate her. That's not particularly consistent on your part. Further, the issue here is not what Harper would or wouldn't have done. Harper tended to avoid substantive contact with the media and public whereas as part of his brand Trudeau is more willing in general to put himself in situations where he might be exposed to open questioning and/or criticism. As such, though, he also has to accommodate and accept the downside, which is that he might have to respond to questions he finds inconvenient or even distasteful. If he can't do so in a respectful fashion, he should drop the "open" schtick for which he seeks credit. I suspect he reacted in the fashion he did because he's aware that public opinion is not on his side where the refugee debate is concerned. In politics, petulance isn't generally perceived as being virtuous. 2.) If you watch the entire news clip, it's clear that Trudeau's response was quite derogatory, angry and he became more intolerant and vitriolic as the woman persisted in her questioning. The tone of the exchange and the nature of the PM's response were notable enough to render the incident a lead story on some news broadcasts. So, not just another rally. 3.) I've already answered this. There are more effective and efficient ways to address these problems than to in a tokenistic fashion bring several thousand people to a cold, economically declining and completely foreign country.

If you're saying that the secrecy of this government is far superior then you're correct. We haven't had a government as secretive and closed down as this one before. That fact has been made public based on metrics that monitor access to information, not to mention some "secret" activities that became public. As an acolyte I'm sure you'll just ignore that though. Your next point is hilarious in that it's Trudeau who is creating the wedge issue. It actually appears that this will be the go to tactic the Liberals will employ during the next election. The fact is that no other PM or government has ever caused the division that this train wreck is causing now.

I found the above post extremely interesting and well written. Thank you,.