Leaderboard

I have no problem with honest and hard working foreigner (and in my view once a foreigner gets her or his citizenship that person is no longer a foreigner). I have issues with those who do not realize that citizenship comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities are RESPECT for the existing culture of the land they CHOSE to join and become a member. And to integrate and contribute in a positive manner to the society which has given them refuge and has welcomed them to their arms like paying taxes, sharing their rich culture, enjoy diversity, and etc. as most of immigrants do.

Men have not had to fight for their rights like women have. I wonder if you would be as willing to accomodate a religion that wanted to set men's rights back several hundred years? It's probably hard for you to imagine, as men have always had their rights and have rarely had to fight for them like women have.

Because they know BEFOREHAND where they come to and what they are getting into. They cannot change the terms after signing the contract (or signing immigration papers). Compatibility is a factor under consideration in our immigration system and those who are not compatible must be kept OUT. Before they come they know well that our culture is based on equality of all including equality of gender so later they cannot come here and try to impose theirs, like segregation of sexes. I never claimed I was born here. In fact I have said in my past posts that I am an immigrant who chose Canada because of what Canada stands for and that is freedom and equality for all and cannot stand those who wish to come here and destroy it. I think that you are a very nice person Michael but it is unfortunate that you are not aware of what certain groups of people can do to this western democracy for which so many died for and its people if they are allowed to form a majority and elect their type of government.

Far too simple and leads to the polarization of views as perpetuated by the CBC and The Star - and often evident on this board. Socialist programs championed by the Left have to be paid for with Capitalist dollars earned on the Right - both are needed but they have to work in a symbiotic relationship - not an antagonistic one. Conservative and traditional Liberal parties have always managed to straddle the line without veering too far off center. It's why we have Blue Liberals and Red Tories - the fiscally responsible swing voters who move back and forth based on policy, leadership and their perceived needs of the province/country when they cast their vote. The Ontario NDP don't understand - or refuse to accept that symbiotic relationship at all. The Wynne Liberals have abandoned that traditional principle in their raw lust to cling to power.

Our own pundits were rolling their eyes yesterday talking about this: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/16/us/ap-us-trudeau-nyu-commencement.html I hope some journalists show those graduate students how Trudeau treats those with differing beliefs and values. http://ottawasun.com/news/national/fox-news-slams-reprehensible-trudeau-over-pro-life-summer-jobs-grant-refusal/wcm/e6522e3f-8c5b-4d85-bb44-17a4803c02fe http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/unstable-intolerant-prime-minister-trudeau/

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/if-ottawa-cant-sell-trans-mountain-itll-need-to-spend-billions-more-to-build-it?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles I know this is a couple days old now, surprised no one has posted anything about it yet. Did we really need to nationalize this project in order to have it move forward. Is this just some last minute attempt by the liberals to flex some muscle in order to keep the PM's words "this project will move forward regardless" instead of just forcing BC to tow the line, not Justin's style to be forceful perhaps. Is it a good decision, do we know of all the risks, i know the Government has not put anything out in the media to let us know of the risks ? or have they ? i mean who is going to buy a pipeline in Canada if we can not complete it, who is going to pay that bill to complete it , experts quote the price tag could go as high as 12 BIL Canadian beaver pelts, that's a lot of fur, even by Justin's standards....What do Canadians think about such an expenditure. how will this effect the liberals in the polls...

As we are in the Ontario 2018 election, I thought this would be worth discussing. Sums me up as a Con very well. This sums me up a

It is, as most columnists have stated, a way to get the pipeline built - which is necessary. It is the cowardly way, of course. They could have simply asserted federal jurisdiction and pushed it through. But they feared doing so. And, of course, the only reason this is necessary is because of the way they've been playing to the environmental crowd at every opportunity, encouraging them to protest, and promising them that if they did, no project would be approved without 'local social license'. But it ultimately only demonstrates that no large project for natural resources extraction or transport can be undertaken in this country because of the way various governments have imposed draconian legislation and requirements. And this Liberal government is in the process of strengthening those even further with bill C69.

In terms of whether the Liberals will be negatively impacted in the polls over the nationalization of the pipeline I say not at all. In fact, the opposite might be true. "Oh look, Justin and the Liberals are so concerned about protecting Canadian natural resources they bought an oil pipeline." And the sentiment might be even stronger in some parts of the country since Kinder Morgan is an American company. "Way to stick it to the Yanks." From an economic viewpoint it is not a good decision because had the Liberals made sure the rule of law was respected on the ground, not one penny of taxpayers' money would have been needed to build the Trans Mountain extension. Bottom line the Liberals did not have the balls to stand up to the BC government and protesters who now see the feds as wimps and easy to beat down. Opposition and protests against the project will therefore increase and it is doubtful the extension will ever be built. Billions will be paid by the Canadian taxpayers, never to be recouped. Then, there is the impact on Canada's reputation as a place to invest. A country that nationalizes companies, businesses or national resources sends out the signal that it is not guaranteed that private enterprise will flourish in such a climate. Best to invest your money elsewhere. Of course, I hope I'm wrong on all counts and that all will end well and we will have dodged a bullet. Yet, looking at what has happened in Cuba and Venezuela following their tendency to nationalize everything in sight, I am left with a queasy feeling.

Bad decision. Kinder Morgan bought the pipeline in 2007 for $550 million. Trudeau buys the same but older pipeline in 2018 for $4.5 billion. Kinder Morgan is very happy with the free government money. Trudeau gave up all negotiating power. He killed Energy East, killed Northern Gateway and was extremely passive on his support for Kinder Morgan (just like his passive support for Keystone XL). Then, as polls started to change, he started getting more serious after Kinder Morgan made its May 31 deadline, declares that the pipeline is in the 'national interest' regardless of how much money he promises to give to Kinder Morgan, and declares that the pipeline will get built no matter what.

Voted.

Speedo only men's day please. #speedolivesmatter

This point of this forum, allegedly, is to have a discussion. If you have nothing worth discussing, why bother chiming in? You want to challenge me on my views? Great - my eyes are open. Challenge them. Lord knows I went from being a hard right fiscal Conservative to a center right one. It's called learning different perspectives and then making up one's mind. Posts like yours offer nothing of value.

If that is your only contribution here why bother?

1) Your analysis of complex legal documents is needed here as much as a camel in a sombrero, and for the same reasons also. Your posts on this topic are vulgar, logically deficient and fallacious to boot. Diving into your logic is a Rube Goldberg machine of the mind. 2) How I wish you could. 3) It's reasonable accommodation. If you pine to take on additional risk to be closer to god, you may do so but you need religion first. That's the way of the west: religious accommodation. If you were truly a patriot, you wouldn't continually crap all over Canada's foundational legal document.

That does not sound like equality at all to me. It's more like discrimination against an identifiable group and that is suppose to be against the Charter of Rights and freedoms. Hey, this is what the feminists wanted equality. But now they want swim days for women only. Hypocrisy.

People need to look at the NDP candidates, to see what the cabinet would be like. It scares the living hell out of me. To have a bunch of radicals who are anti oil, anti poppy pro nazis and some down right nutty people. At least ford has some smart people that understand waht it takes to run a province. I have had enough of activist running the country.

It's those legal and political parameters from this government that got us here in the first place - and has now sent a signal to the world that it is virtually impossible to get our natural resources out of the ground and shipped to global markets. First, they changed the rules on the environmental review process - a process which had already been successfully completed by Kinder Morgan. That process is in itself, so onerous and subjective that it will scare off investment. Then they came up with Bill C-48 - the oil tanker moratorium, now in the senate - which virtually guarantees that no further coastal shipping projects can be built. An oil project - in the national interest, following a route that's been viable for 65 years can't be built? We're being played for suckers - duped by US funded money to keep out resources in the ground while the US forges ahead and are now an oil exporter. As Obama boasted: "This administration has built enough pipeline to circle the globe - and then some". Our wild-eyed, naive eco-nuts have been duped by US Big Oil into making Canada the Sucker Nation. Remember all the "protests" in the US over the XL Pipeline - a pipeline to funnel Canadian oil to Tidewater? Where was all the outrage over the Obama pipeline boasting?

Geez this is new. Something I never expected to be called. Before I was called many things like a muslim fanatic, an ISIS supporter, An Iran regime supporter, a leftist and now this!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder what would be next. a zionist?

They cannot come here and try to change our way of life. If they don't like it here then they should go back to the hell they come from where swimming pools are men only or women only. In Some countries even classes are separated and public transportation and schools segregated and how about separating streets. What all men are raping with their eyes? If so then cover their damn eyes don't punish the victims (women) by forcing them to cover their hair and faces. That is why so much hidden child abuses in those regions because sexes never mixed and access even talking to opposite sex is so difficult and restricted. Even many marriages take place without them knowing or seeing each other. What the hell!!!!!!!!! Keep the west free and democratic by keeping those who do not believe in these values OUT of this land.

A privilege is a special advantage that a specific person or group enjoy. When the group in question forms a large majority of the population, it's not really a privilege to be a member of that group, it's just the norm. Imagine the extreme case, lets say everyone is treated equally, except 1 guy that everyone hates. It's doesn't make sense to describe the status of not being that one hated person a "privilege", but that one person clearly still experiences discrimination. The same is true if instead of 1 guy you have 2 people that everyone discriminates against, or even a few % of the population. A "privilege" is something that can be correctly used to describe the advantages one might get from being a member of a hereditary aristocracy, like a medieval noble, or someone born into riches, but not just for having the same rights and treatment as the vast majority of the population, even if there is some minority that faces worse treatment under certain circumstances. The very use of the word "privilege" is intended to try to guilt people into thinking they are beneficiaries of some undeserved advantage. But that is clearly not the case. White people in America have precisely the rights and responsibilities that all Americans are supposed to have as defined by the constitution and state and federal law (although, in some cases, those rights are infringed upon by various government agencies). If some groups are treated worse, which arguably they are in certain cases, then that is certainly a problem that should be rectified, but it has nothing to do with privilege.

The sole reason given to 'prove' white privilege is the economic failure of the Black community compared to the White community. Pointing out that that the reason given for that failure does not appear to factor into the success of the Asian community is elementary logic. Either you need to discount white privilege as an excuse for Black economic failure or you need to explain why it doesn't affect Asians. Thus far you have made no effort to deal with this.

My riding will be a contest between Libs and the NDP. We have a NOTA candidate, however, and as a protest vote I'm thinking of giving him my support. In particular, I like the party's appeal to direct democracy. I can't see the difference between the Libs and NDP except that the Libs have been in power too long and made too many mistakes while ignoring the plight of consumers. But an NDP government would probably usher in more giveaways the province simply can't afford. And Ford? Well, I think he's just too big a risk. Most I talk to suspect that if elected he'll ditch the folksy appeal and plunk his support behind developers, landlords and the broader rentier class. His secretive campaign isn't doing him much good. He needs to go on the record about serious issues that significantly impact Ontarians other than hydro prices, like outrageous housing costs and poor health care. I would rather the PCs have chosen Elliot or Mulroney, either of whom might have been more forthright and appealing.

Thanks. And what kind of people are they sending here? When the US sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

The yarn continues..... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asylum-seekers-border-crossing-1.4258928 ..... https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/border-agents-diverted-to-help-with-asylum-influx-union-fears-travel-delays-1.3934298

Here's one of the biggest yarn: ....and when the poor folks took him up on his generous offer (risking life and limb on a long journey to Canada).......he says what kinda translates to: OOOPS. That's not really true. Let me re-phrase that. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/25/justin-trudeau-forced-to-backtrack-on-open-invitation-to-refugees http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/myth-refugees-canada-trudeau-1.4257696 I can understand that he's trying to copycat Trump with his tweeting - but his untruthful tweet is costing us!

Remember that speech he made at the UN? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-justin-trudeau-humblebrags-at-the-united-nations/article36372636/ He offers $36,000 to each indigenous victim of Scoop.....and yet, gave $10 million to Khadr. That's how much his apology to indigenous people is worth. I know money can't make up to the injustice on the 60's Scoop victims, but this huge discrepancy of payment for practically the same wrong - violation of rights - is more like adding salt to injury. I have a big problem trying to get over that discrepancy!

And there he was in NY, weaving yarns...... https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/17/trumps-trade-chief-rejecting-trudeaus-public-optimism-says-nafta-deal-is-nowhere-near-close.html

Why belabour a succinctly obvious point?