Leaderboard

Works fine on Democrats, especially on lefty "progressives". That's how President Obama got away with so many lies and contradictions.

You social justice warriors can continue to blather on with you inane love of different cultures and societies and how wonderful it will be when Canada is like the United Nations, with vast hordes of foreigners elbowing each other for space in our enormously overcrowded cities, but Canadians aren't going to buy it. We see the public housing projects filled with immigrants and refugees. We see the crime roles filled with immigrants. We see the gang violence in our streets, almost entirely done by ethnic groups fed by immigration, and we see the statistics on poor economic outcomes from immigrants, and we're not buying your rapturous pursuit of whatever is the most shiny in your tiny brains. Thanks for so ably demonstrating both your level of maturity and your intellect. I would imagine that in an open, staged debate before an audience this would be most impressive. I have higher standards, however. And your inability to present any argument in favor of our present immigration system, numbers or economic viability other than broad, amorphous suppositions on how immigrants somehow improve the economy, even though you can't produce any kind of reports or studies that say so, just makes me pity you.

This one will do. All your positions are hard left. The reality is that well over 70% of the people in this country told two different polls that they like Kellie Lietch's ideas and want immigrants tested for values, clearly demonstrating that the majority of Canadians have an enormous concern for what kind of immigrants are coming here. YOU and those like you are responsible for Donald Trump being in power down south. Your kind caused Brexit, and your kind might very well lead to Marie Le Pen getting elected in France, and other far right leaders getting elected throughout the West. Your prissy sanctimonious sense of moral superiority over anyone who questions immigration - always accompanied by the requisite sneering insults of the social justice warrior "Xenophobe! Racist!" are what have caused people to give up on politically correct politicians who fear such insults and so do not act on the people's concerns, and turn to the fringe. And yet your head explodes and you froth at the mouth at anyone who doesn't want them here. Interesting. I wonder what you do if you do care about something. I've never bragged or boasted about anything. My income only enters the conversation in terms of conversations about taxation. I believe I've pointed out I live in a bungalow and rive a Hyundai. If that sounds like bragging then you lead a sad life. This just demonstrates either how ignorant you are about how immigration policy has changed over the years, or your basic dishonesty. The deal is I care about this country, and you don't.

Just my opinion. I think they have similar economic messages to an extent and are in-line on social issues. Although the three candidates are quite different, I've seen a bit of overlap in support for Bernier and Chong and to a lesser extent O'Leary. Many of their supporters are looking for a candidate who's bolder on policy and different than Harper. Scheer and O'Toole could be well positioned for a final two spot but would O'Leary go to them?

Perhaps you would be happier banning all further discussion of immigration. I find your efforts at shutting down discussions on this subject to be contemptible.

It's too bad you are incapable of playing more than one note yourself.

Would you care to repeat this in English? You reduce concern about violent religious fanaticism and values hostile to our own to 'complaints about dirty foreigners' in a fashion that would give credit to the most sanctimonious social justice warrior. So now you appear to be sulking because I have suggested that a topic called "This week in Islam" is not the appropriate one to discuss culture differences. Are you incapable of starting such a topic yourself under the appropriate forum?

Yet somehow they get get built in the United States.......

Your video provided a snippet of Dawkins' comment. Here is the context: Whether there is an all-knowing, all-loving creator or there isn't... the world we see works as if there isn't. The world is full of pain, suffering, injustice, fear, misery... delivered without compassion or discrimination. As you say, the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. The video attributes qualities like "equality" and "generosity" to God, but we don't see these qualities embodied in his creation. One baby can be born with a million-dollar trust-fund and loving parents... the next can be born with leukemia. That bears more resemblance to the "pitiless indifference" Dr Dawkin describes than to Dr Craig's "equality and generosity". Everyone already has their own idea of right and wrong. Even among Christians alone, the definition of right and wrong has been hotly debated constantly, for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Your video suggests that "equality", "generosity", and "sacrifice" are objectively as "good", and "greed", "abuse", and "discrimination" are objectively "evil". And yet Christians have continuously debated and changed their ideas of all of these things over the centuries. Dr Craig confidently proclaims that Abuse is objectively evil, and yet in centuries gone by, Christians have committed horrific acts of abuse in the belief that they were doing God's work. Torture and slaughter of witches and pagans and heretics, for example. Equality? Christians proudly note that Christians were leaders of the movement to abolish slavery in America. They're not quite as proud that Christians were also leaders of the US movement to retain slavery, or that Christians were the ones who captured and kept the slaves in the first place. Discrimination? Christians continue to debate which kinds of discrimination are and aren't acceptable, to this very day. Some Christians believed that the Bible supported segregation. Dr Craig says that discrimination is objectively evil, yet many different kinds of discrimination have been embraced by Christians over the ages, so clearly this is a subjective issue, not an objective one. Discrimination remains a hot-button issue in the United States right now as some Christians go to court to claim that their religion requires them to discriminate against others. If Christians are tapped into an objective morality, how have Christian views on so many issues changed so dramatically over the ages? One might suggest that there could still be an objective morality and we're just not able to agree on what it actually is... but is there any real difference between a subjective morality and an objective moral absolute that's continually being re-evaluated through ongoing subjective interpretation? I'd suggest that there isn't. Is a moral absolute even possible? Even the most clear-cut commandment-- thou shalt not kill-- isn't an absolute. We can all agree that there are situations where killing is necessary. Trying to figure out if you're in such a situation is a matter of subjective judgment. What about greed? The video says that greed is evil, but people actually spend a lot of time and energy trying to rationalize or justify greed. The video says that God is Love, and all of this objective morality flows from that principle, and that the objective morality it talks about stems from the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself". And yet, people spend a lot of time and energy trying to find reasons to not love their neighbors. You yourself, betsy, recently posted a message explaining that you feel that this most central principle of the New Testament actually only applies to other Christians. The video includes an image of a newspaper with the headline "Man Kills Child" as something we universally recognize as wrong. Yes, we do. And it's not just humans, either. Most types of animals feel the same way. Every creature has some strategy for making sure its offspring survive. For some types of animals, it's simply a matter of having so many offspring that the law of averages says enough survive to continue the species. For other types of animals-- mammals, birds-- care and nurturing are part of making sure their offspring survive. Most of us have seen some of the enchanting animal videos on the internet. One of my favorites is one where a big dog shows up in a yard and tries to grab a toddler... in a flash, a little house-cat attacks the dog like a fluffy little cyclone, chasing it away from the toddler. In another, a child falls down and hurts himself... mom arrives on the scene, but the family cat arrives too, thinks the woman has hurt the child, and makes her back away. A dog sees a girl swimming, and jumps into the lake, chomps a mouthful of her hair, and swims frantically to pull her to shore. A momma dog nursing an orphaned kitten along with her own puppies. We see these videos and think it's cute or funny, but they also illustrate something much more important. They demonstrate how other animals, not just humans, are able to form bonds, even bonds that transcend species. And they illustrate the powerful instinct of protecting and nurturing their young. This is something that, as you say, is written in our hearts. And not just human hearts. It is transcendent. If there were mammals that didn't have this instinct, they've gone extinct. If there are people born without the instinct to protect their young, they're not going to pass that gene on to future generations, because they aren't going to have descendants. There might have been societies where there were no limits on killing, but those societies probably didn't last long. Every human society has some minimum amount of principles to preserve order and unity and make sure the group survived. Every society that didn't have the minimum amount of principles to ensure its own survival died out. Further on the issue of "Man Kills Child", we can look at two examples from the Bible in which God explicitly tells men to kill children. One of them is when the Israelites massacred the Amalekites. God instructed the Israelites to kill every last man, woman, and child, even infants, even their farm animals. Everything. Nothing was to be left. If one supposes the killing of children to be an objective evil, this has to be pretty tough to reconcile with the notion of God as the definition of good. But Dr Craig tries anyway... he wrote an essay on the subject. "Obviously this sounds pretty bad, but..." Ultimately, the fact that Dr Craig can attempt to rationalize such a horrific event as "not actually evil" demonstrates that no matter how black and white a case of "objective morality" appears, there's subjective wiggle-room. A second example of God killing a man to kill a child is when God told Abraham to kill his own son. Luckily for Isaac, God stopped him at the last minute, once he had seen that Abraham really did intend to go through with it. What was the point of this? To make Abraham prove that his obedience to God was absolute... that he'd do what God told him, no matter how wrong it seemed. What's the message here? The message is don't trust your instincts, that morality that is "written in our hearts". The message is, don't listen to that innate sense of right and wrong that we possess... obey your religion instead. But if God is the source of this "objective morality" we all supposedly possess, why would religion come into conflict with it? And yet we see this in our world today. We see parents who believe in faith-healing ignoring their childrens' suffering because they think God wants them to. Like modern versions of Abraham, they're sacrificing their children because they believe God requires it. Surely this would fall under Dr Craig's notion of "objectively evil", and yet here we are in 2017 with children dying from easily treatable diseases because parents are convinced that God wants it that way. -k

Correct...the U.S. is just better at doing it than is your own country's "slaughter of innocents". So spare me from the moral outrage and get on with the BDS game. Israel is still alive and kicking the ass of its enemies, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

But you purposefully ignored the substantive posting for the "escape" I offered you. You guys are so predictable.

Gee, that was helpful. Why are you conservatives always so great at providing such useful information?

A lot of people think man-made global warming is fake including a lot of scientists. People like Trudeau committed 2.65 billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money to third world countries to help them deal with climate change, without asking Canadians. Not to mention the vast amounts of money he gives away to other countries for various causes dear to his heart. At least Trump is standing up for the people, unlike Trudeau.

I know! You can only have coherent discussions with voices in your head. You haven't demonstrated anything at all... you pointed out a single study that focuses on net tax reciepts, but an elementary student could tell you that's only one small part of the picture. If you want to "demonstrate" something, then you'll need to do a bit more than that. Youll need to take into account the demand for every single kind of product and service generated by a growing population, and the macro economic effects of that over time. You tried to like and say your cited "study" took all those factors into account, but then you couldn't show anyone where, when challenged. Its just a bunch of internet turrets syndrome. Baaah! SJW! Bcheaaaach! Ultra leftist!!! Bwoootot! Immigrants attacking the very fabric of our society! Meanwhile on planet earth... We have among the highest standards of life of any society in human history. We have near record highs in employment. Both GDP and per capital GDP are through the roof. Life expectancy is relatively high. Infant mortality rates are relatively low. Murder and violent crime are receding. The streets are safe. But never mind all that! Btawapaaaaat! The sky is falling! The immigrants are coming to kill us, and the vast liberal media conspiracy is trying help them!

Can you name a single SJW position I have ever taken? One single one. You cant... because as usual you are arguing against strawmen that exist only in your head. I dont care who we do or don't let in. I have advocated dozens of times that we increase the number of immigrants chosen to benefit the economy. I have never a single time argued that we owe anybody anything. Same thing with you calling me an "ultra leftist" in some other thread. Name one single position. The reality is... Everyone that isnt a hardcore xenophobic, islamaphobic, nationalistic, racist, coward that installs bars on his windows to protect himself from the invading swarthy unwashed immigrant horde... fits your definition of "ultra leftist", or "sjw". You are arguing against imaginary people inside your head. I could care less if we let a single muslim into this country or not... Its not even an interesting topic to me. I don't even know of a single muslim in the city where I live. I'm sure there is some... I just find your position fascinating. Its bizzare that a Canadian would worked up into such a frenzy about this topic. You brag and boast over and over and over again how successful you are, your income, etc... But we have had the same immigration policy since about 1970. Same immigration rates... It obviously hasnt stopped you from turning out so great LOL. So what is it? Did your parents die in 911? Were your children beaten or robbed by immigrants? Did your wife have an affair with an easterner? What is the big fvcking deal man?

Argus is against it? Must be a better idea than I originally thought.

There are estimated between 50,000 and over 100,000 illegals in Canada. How is it that people who came in and stayed in Canada without papers, or without any legal status are not committing an illegal act? Is this illegal occupation of Canada being encouraged by cities in Canada that declare themselves as sanctuary cities? Is it being encouraged by Trudeau who openly invited migrants to come in?

They came to my door a few times, a couple of years ago. Was a young guy, teenager almost and a girl. I went out on the porch and asked what they wanted. They said "We want to talk to you about God." I said, ok. So we had a nice chat. After a while they could see I had my own religious beliefs and they wanted to encourage me to go to the Kingdom Hall. I told them I would not do that, nor attend any church really, because I don't associate those institutions with the true beliefs of Jesus Christ. This troubled them, and they left. They came back about two weeks later, this time the young guy, girl, and an old man. Brought out the reinforcements, I see. So me and the old man had a nice long discussion again, I talked about what I call "The institutionalization of Christ", which I feel is antithetical to the very words which Jesus is purported to have said. And same goes for Kingdom Hall. Eventually they tired of me and left on their own accord. They never returned.

In my youth, it was the opposite...."Better dead than red".

Agreed...it is far fetched because the former U.S. SIOP had very specific, escalating objectives including limited first strike options. During much of the Cold War, the general strategy was initial defense suppression and preservation of survivable assets for follow-up attacks, principally by alert manned bombers with hours of ingress flight time. For the U.S., targets were flexibly selected for specific reasons beyond just large population centers from a very large target database. The large targeting domain was prioritized, translated, and coordinated into specific target packages for "coverage" by nuclear weapons delivery platforms. Improvements in targeting accuracy also reduced the need for very high yield, multiple megaton warheads.

Entirely predictably in the context of electoral politics. The people have been told since birth that the government was theirs, and ought to be responsive to their wishes and concerns. Yet for some years now the elected politicians have refused to even acknowledge the validity of those fears. Indeed, they've universally condemned everyone who expresses any issue with immigration, particularly with Muslim immigrants. Given that Europe has, for the most part, proportional representation, it was a certainty that concerns that none of the mainstream parties were willing to consider would give rise to new parties. The rise of Le Pen and her ilk are directly attributable not to Islamic violence and uncontrolled immigration, but to politicians who evidently did not understand why anyone would care about masses of foreigners coming into their countries. In fact, to a political and media class who not only did not share those concerns but saw the expression of such concerns as immoral. Douglas Murray speaks about how Theresa May, now Prime Minister of the UK, got up at the last Tory conference to talk about her favorite verses from the Koran. George Bush and Barrack Obama have done the same. France wrote into law anti-hate legislation which pretty much criminalized any open expressions of resentment or dislike or discomfort for any aspect of Muslim culture. Even Brigitte Bardot has been convicted under it, repeatedly, because she criticizes the way they treat animals! Needless to say, virtually all the politicians in Europe are of the 'open' type. Or were. Certainly the media is. The BBC never refers to ISIS without calling them "so called ISIS" to make it clear that they don't believe ISIS has anything to do with Islam. Much like Barrack Obama proclaiming, after one particularly vile incident of murder, that it had less to do with Islam than any other religion. Oh? When they shouted Allah Akbar as they cut a man's head off? How all these liberals can convince themselves that masses of people engaged in bloodletting in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam is something you have to watch or read Haidr's lectures about emotional argument to understand. They want to believe it, and therefore, they DO believe it. They find a way to convince themselves of it. But ordinary people clearly think otherwise. The opinion polls say growing numbers of people in Europe, the US and Canada, the majority, in fact, have major issues with Islam, regardless of what the politicians and media say.

Yes....you gotta problem wit dat ? Stop us..... God Bless the USA !

Nobody has ever suggested all white people are perfect. In fact, the only people who ever talk about race, aside from one individual, are the people who are on the hard left of most political issues. And if Pakistan, the subject of the cite above, weren't among our top source countries for immigrants, or at least if we bothered to screen who comes here from there it wouldn't concern me an so many others. But the Left adores foreign cultures as much as they hate ours. As for starting 1000 threads. At least I base them on reality, and not the lunatic ravings of the psychologically damaged, like most of the threads you guys seem to love these days. Hey, how about another one about the evil Americans and the vile west causing genocide all over the world? Maybe another on the glories of Turkey?

Some Muslims no doubt would. Unfortunately there seems to be a vast difference in how willing Muslims are to tolerate and be fair to those of other religions around the world. It seems, in almost all cases, that the more Muslims there are the more reassured they are by their numbers, the less inclined they are to treat other religions with a great deal of respect. Yes, there are so many enlightened Muslim nations around the world, filled with kindly, gentle, tolerant people...

The biggest threat to democracy is definitely not terrorism. I'd say the biggest threats are internal... apathy, polarization, partisanship, concentration of power, etc.

It is embarassing for NATO to have a country like Turkey as one of its members.

The fall of Turkey could very well put the final nail in NATO's coffin.

And Georgia was not a NATO member. As soon as they abandon a NATO member, the US in particular and NATO as a whole lose meaning. We will see NATO collapse and be replaced by regional alliances, a big reason most European nations want to be member of NATO was and is security. Abandon member nations and NATO becomes about as useful as the UN.

They most definitely would, last time around the allies sold out their smaller allies and ended up paying dearly for it. Should the west abandon their smaller allies to anyone, it would end the alliance and destroy American credibility. Last time around the French and British sold out Czechoslovakia to the Germans and ended up facing Germans armed with Czech tanks and weapons...