Leaderboard

Perhaps you might try doing some online research before rendering sweeping generalizations. Scandinavian countries, and particularly Sweden and Denmark, face significant challenges relating to migration, not the least of which is the sustainability of the long-standing societal consensus in both countries on the efficacy of the welfare state itself. None of this is really a shock. The late Nobel-winning American economist, Milton Friedman, famously noted that the welfare state cannot practically co-exist with an open migration policy. And your comments on the situation in the U.S. are wildly alarmist. While a strong although likely minority cohort of Americans fall into the camp of what has traditionally labelled "nativism," America continues to absorb hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year. Nativism's pull long preceded Trump's ascendancy and has largely been grounded in economic insecurity more than it has cultural exclusion and historically it's been promoted by what we now consider "progressive" institutions in society, particularly labour unions. Trump has certainly capitalized on certain aspects of American insecurity to assuage his political base but it's helpful to remember that America is perhaps the only major Western country to share a significant land border with a developing economy. Wealthy Australia, due to its isolation and proximity to the world's most populous continent, takes an equally hard line on immigration. If you understood economic history, perhaps you'd realize that prosperity was largely built and sustained in the democratic West within the context of secure national boundaries. There is little evidence to broadly suggest that it can be maintained otherwise.

You really do need to educate yourself instead of just watching the CBC or reading The Star. The first wave of "migrants that Americans hate" were almost exclusively from Haiti - refugees who came to the US under a TPS program (Temporary Protection Status) put in place due to the 2011 earthquake. After determining that is was safe to return to Haiti, refugees were given 18 months' notice that their TPS status would be ending. Canada had an identical policy for Haitians but ended it more than a year prior to Trump's announcement. As a result, almost all Haitians that rushed to the border as a result of Trudeau's idiotic tweet, are/have been ineligible for refugee status. Trump is simply doing what Canada SHOULD be doing. Refugees are precisely that = people seeking temporary refuge and ultimately/hopefully returning to their countries when deemed safe to do so. It is not/should not be viewed as an alternate path to immigration/citizenship. Refugees are refugees. Immigrants are immigrants. Different rules, obligations and expectations. Trudeau and his CBC enablers constantly combine immigration with refugees and "asylum seekers" - specifically to paint those who want better control of our borders and refugee/asylum processes as "anti immigration". It's a perfect example of why this Prime Minister is the most divisive in Canadian history.

Trudeau is being exactly as strong as he should be, especially on the NAFTA fight with the US's fascist Trump regime. It's the Conservatives who are ready to sell the farm for quick profit. And Trudeau knows that Canada must quickly diversify away from the US and expand our trade horizons before the US finds more reasons to blackmail our country. All Conservatives are basically the same and Scheer is quite similar to Trump. Neither represent socially responsible government, they both promote fascism and far right extremist. Of which, the socially responsible Scandinavian countries have proven to be very wrong now. Not to mention that the Cons will quickly align with the Fraser Institute if elected and again attempt to destroy our health care system. Rightists don't believe in universal health care for all the people, they prefer to make a profit off of people's lives and wellbeing. If you're an American stick around. We Canadians can teach you a lot about caring and social responsibilities.

There's no evidence Canadians take a different position, and quite a bit that they agree. 49% of Canadians think Canada is bringing in too many immigrants. 68% of Canadians want immigrants to assimilate better and faster 75% of Canadians support a values test for immigrants. 68% of Canadian want their province to impose a face covering law like Quebec. Two thirds of Canadians think we are taking in too many refugees 70% of Canadians were opposed to bringing in so many Syrian refugees.

If we were totally colour blind we would be bringing in more immigrants from Europe and the United States, and far, far fewer from the Middle East. Africa and China. Government statistics and studies have shown immigrants from Europe are far more economically successful in Canada than immigrants from other locations. This means they'll not only be happier, but will be contributing taxes so that poorer people can enjoy government services - rather than simply contributing to the demand for services. However, there is little evidence to show we need to bring in immigrants at the rate we are, and no evidence that increasing that rate would be good for Canada - vs considerable evidence it would not be. Dirty... ? Your positions are so extreme I'm beginning to smell something here other than far left silliness.

Both have already changed their policies quite a bit, so if you're going to insist everyone 'understand' your dishonest view of the world you're not going to get anywhere. More likely he pays taxes and you do not. Thus you berate him for caring about money, yet you place your vote on whichever party offers YOU the most money, the most programs and services FOR FREE, because other people have to pay for it.

Not likely, as PM Chretien enthusiastically supported Canada's military attack on another nation without UNSC approval in 1999 (Kosovo War), and conspired with France and the United States to invade Haiti to kidnap their democratically elected president (Aristide) in 2004.

Conservatives don't believe in manmade climate change and so there's never going to be much of a discussion on the topic until their dragged out of their closets. The Cons need to hear some support for their denial before they will try to make it one of their party platforms. Til that happens Scheer and his accomplices will only give us subtle hints that the scientific community is wrong. Maybe another way of putting it would be to understand how AGW is so inconsistent with Conservative belief in the 6000 year old earth?

Blah, blah blah. trump used Manafort just like other Republicans before him. He had a sleazy lawyer to cover up his affairs. He lied about his affairs. So what? Democrats don't care about that stuff either. There's a difference between lying about personal affairs and lying about matters of state. Hillary cheating in the Dem primaries and the Presidential debate are both bigger than any of Trump's "lies". Ditto for her lying about Benghazi, lying about her email servers, and deleting subpoenaed evidence. Trump supporters don't consider him a liar because he's doing everything that he said he would do when he was running for election. If Trudeau had run on decent campaign promises, stuck to them, and lied about a couple of affairs that he had our country would be far better off.

What I find particularly problematic about the "progressive" diversity mindset is that it's grounded in an assumption that Canadian society is somehow intractably intolerant. Self-styled progressives seem to want to have it every which way. We're meant to be open and welcoming on the one hand, while at the same time being cast as parochial and xenophobic. A 2015 study declared Canada to be the most tolerant country on earth (link to article below) and I believe that another international study found Canada to be the 4th most tolerant country and yet we're told by progressives that this country is a hopeless cesspool of racism and intolerance that can only be cured by social engineering schemes in combination with curtailing free speech. (Interestingly, some of the countries from which Canada now receives most of its immigrants are considered to be among the most intolerant - but that's another issue.) I doubt that any reasonable person would argue that there's no racism or intolerance in Canada. And yet any little incident, even if it turns out to be a hoax like last year's supposed hijab attack against a schoolgirl in Toronto, is presented as an example of a society with a dark underbelly. Personally, I think we've all been had on a lot of this moralizing nonsense. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-named-most-tolerant-country-in-the-world-1.2640276

You got more war anyways. But the whole war on terror has been a mistake for USA and the world.

From your post it would appear that the only thing you know about is hysterical generalizations based only on the voices in your head. How about giving us examples of these things you claim instead of just demented ranting? For example, you can show how Harper and the Conservatives were destroying health care by increasing the healthcare budget every year. Or you could show us how they didn't want equitable taxation by lowering taxes for the average person instead of increasing them like the current Liberals. Those are just a couple of suggestions, you can come up with others on your own since it was your flight of fancy that prompted this.

I said no such thing. You have deliberately misquoted me, and also personally called me out in a thread, without linking to my user name. Learn to write in this forum without attacking posters, and you will not be reported.

Mueller a fool and part of the swamp? Hell, he is investigating the swamp. Did you pay no attention at all to the sort of people Trump surrounded himself with? Take some advice from someone who has studied US politics for over forty years and do some proper research. If you are not going to do that then you deserve to be taken in by the charlatan in the White House. BTW I don't think the Democrats are going to have much of a problem getting Trump on something. Hell, he can't even say five sentences without telling at least one lie. As I have said before, if you actually think Trump is not guilty, then you should welcome this chance for him to prove his innocence? What exactly are you afraid of, other that the ugly fact that he might be guilty of everything he has been rumoured to have done?

I'm sure the Rohingya Muslims will be happy to hear that. There were only 24 Indians out of 329 people on board Air India and 268 of the victims were Canadians and 27 Brits. It is the worst terrorist attack against Canadians in history. My point is, the world, including Canada, has a few evil people, some of whom are Muslim, some are Christian, Jewish, Hindi Buddhist and Sikh. Remember the massacre at the Mosque in Montreal? Most people of all these religions are good people. It is wrong to single out one religion or the other based on the actions of a few wingnuts. It is the same as calling me a racist because I am a conservative. Anyway, Happy New Year.

What has bigotry and racism got to do with importing massive numbers of impoverished middle east Muslims who think a woman who shows her hair is a whore into western countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where womens equality is taken for granted? It is only basic common sense that this is going to cause enormous problems.

Previous to that he was building bombs with which to better kill the infidel

Yeah you hit that one right on the head. Western economies, markets essentially exploit the fact that environmental regulations are quite lacking in third world countries. That is one reason they manufacture goods much cheaper than they can be made here. Outright ban might not be tenable but I could see a good reason to apply tariffs. Their ability to circumvent regulations gives them an unfair advantage. Make their goods more expensive to buy, unless they meet certain standards. But none of our current leaders have the guts to do anything like this, and we all know why.

Wait. Are you talking about the China that completely owns the solar panel manufacturing market? Or the China that is winning the battle to control the battery market? Or the China that has almost 100% of the world's electric buses? Or the China that is positioning itself to take over the auto industry as it electrifies? Right wingers need to stop eating their own bullshit. China is a harsh dictatorship and they won't shed tears if there is a die-off, including some of their own population. But they are also realists and they are skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it used to be. Yes, they have modernized their country using coal - who hasn't?? But while we squabble over pipelines for dirty bitumen, they are leapfrogging us. Wake up.

Let's call them the Mueller Security Snowflake Blankies. And then branch out later into Canada for all those snowflake liberals here in Canada to wear. Now that would be a hoot. Lol.

Indeed, and further to this point, legal discrimination in public accommodation is practiced in the U.S. (e.g. women only fitness centers, rest rooms), and Selective Service registration (military draft).

Omar went to Afghanistan to conduct Jihad. He specifically asked not to be left at home with the women. These folks shot first and killed the translators dead in the first volley. The Americans then opened fire.

You've inadvertently, I think, put your thumb on one of the problem points with Muslims. Time and time again we've seen rage from Muslims because of what they perceive as the way 'the west' has attacked this or that Muslim group in a country far away they've never been to and know nothing about. Those ignorant vermin who butchered the two Scandinavian girls in Morocco were uneducated rabble; street vendors and carpenters. Their claim "This is for Syria, here are the heads of your God. This is in revenge for our brothers in Hajin'" is similar to what other such Muslims have done in that they had almost certainly never even seen Syria or Hajin, but felt this sense of tight brotherhood with other Muslims against all outsiders, and a sense of outrage those outsiders (in this case simply westerners) had killed some. And that anger was simply for anyone of the same religion as those who had attacked "Islam". It didn't even matter these girls were from countries that weren't involved. They were Christians, and thus the enemy. This is not the way Christians think of things. Nobody here is liable to hunt down and kill Muslims because of the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim countries. But it IS the way a significant number of Muslims appear to see things.

I have stayed out of this topic because it is far too complex and the battle lines are too deeply involved with ideology instead of hard science. Even the science is horribly tainted. There is no question that anthropomorphic climate change exists, but what the real questions are: how much is our contribution and can we actually make any difference? While the Euroweenies and their fellow travellers march to the "all carbon bad" drummer, they conveniently ignore the two largest factors of all: natural carbon release and human population. A single large forest fire or volcano has far more effect than the total emissions of all of mankind over some measured interval greater than the natural event. Now the extremists claim that the forest fires are caused by our contribution to warming - but anyone with a half a conscious thought will point out that coniferous forests MUST burn to survive, and when they do, they will take whatever else is around them along for the ride. One of the poorest controlled combustion processes is burning wood at atmospheric pressure. One of the very best controlled combustion processes is a modern internal combustion engine. Earth exists in its current form because of the carbon cycle. It has been happening for billions of years, and will continue for billions more - with or without our meager participation. Ever see all of that limestone out there? Where the hell do you think it came from? It is an extremely complicated and poorly understood thing, this cycle of carbon coming and going between atmosphere and geological components of the geosphere. But one thing is absolutely certain - it will continue to go on long after us, and the extremes that nature has produced in the past are well outside of the narrow range we need for mammalian subsistence. Another overlooked detail: temperature trends do NOT match the ideal assumption of most observers. Generally speaking, by far the most active and rapid response carbon sink is the oceans. Usually ocean temp rise, and thus CO2 release precedes atmospheric temp rise, not the other way around. And, NO, I don't have the time to research a thousand links to support, as one can support ANY position one chooses from the endless supply of information on the interwebs.

Look, its not about "hating" on gays and depriving them of their human rights. Its about not encouraging it as far is government and culture is concern. About time snowflakes learn the nuanced difference. Also when the government force it down our throat it grind my gear. If I want to object to baking a cake for a gay couple on religious ground then that is within my "god-given" rights. Fact is, it is a private business, I can refuse service to ANYONE. On a cultural note, there is nothing wrong with thinking two man kissing as disgusting. If you think that it is "normal" then that's your opinion just don't try to force the rest of us to thinking that it isn't nasty. You're entitled to your own opinion as are the rest of us.

Illegal immigration should always be "discredited".

Where to start: 1) We're in a warming cycle. It was cool from 1900 until around 1920 - and then hot until the 40's - most of the extreme heat records were set in the 20's and 30's. Then it started to cool again into the 70's - which spawned the fears of another ice age. Then in the 80's it started to heat up again until 2000 and we've been stuck around the same temperature since then on average. All these ups and downs were not at all in tandem with CO2. And it's still puzzling to me why no heat records have been set in any US state over the last 20 years. 2) "Greatest acceleration in temperatures since pre-history" - back to point number one - it's arguable that the increase leading up to the 20's and 30's were just as "dramatic" - but in reality, it's silly to think that you could take the 30 year "hockey stick" - fraudulent though it is - and accurately compare it to every other 30 year time-frame "since pre-history". Roman and mideivel warming periods were just that - periods of warmth after/before periods of cooling. It's possible that it was even warmer back then but that's not as important as the fact that they occurred - without the need of burning fossil fuels. Can you grasp that? 3) "Reduce the use of coal - like Ontario did" - if you truly believed that to be helpful, you would be on a bandwagon helping to get Canada's oil to China, India and other places to help reduce the use of coal. Stop wringing your hands and admit to yourself that the West can accomplish nothing unless the developing world also stops burning fossil fuels. If not, their economies will expand, their populations will grow. and modernity will have demanding even more fossil fuels......assuming their political systems can handle the stress. Anything less that total global cooperation would be a fool's errand - and that's only if you think it would make any difference in the Climate. 4) I'll agree with some of your ideas for a green transition - but to think we have to save the world by 2030 is complete nonsense and even if true. we're dead anyway. So it's time to stop squabbling and do things pragmatically around the world. Use oil to replace coal. Use gas to replace oil. Develop Hydro where appropriate. We are not that far away from fusion power - here's an interesting link. It won't happen as quickly as stated but it shows how relatively close we are to limitless, clean energy.......and the Man Upstairs has given us enough natural fuels to help us get to where we need to go. Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2018/08/01/will-lockheed-martin-change-the-world-with-its-new-fusion-reactor/#642361504c49

I don't get it where you think that accepting any and all refugees is a good thing for any country. Canadians for one cannot afford to accept any more legal or illegal refugees anymore. We are bloody broke. And besides Canada is full to the rim already. Canadians need a break from all of this massive immigration that is going on into Canada. it is really starting to screw up everything in Canada. Give me a break.

Being an ex Christian is not a crime in the Muslim world. In fact, Christians are encouraged to change faiths - to Islam of course. It is only doing the reverse that gets you beheaded.

You've got to wonder, though, why they're so interested in getting involved if the whole thing is merely virtue signalling mush? It seems odd to argue for something when noting at the same time that it's irrelevant. We saw this with M-103. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect there's a real agenda behind the virtue-signaling and that if we just give it a pass we'll eventually land in a situation where that agenda's been normalized and enshrined in policy and law. And then we'll be stuck with it.

Of course, they don't want to be exposed... this is part of the Trudeau regime's plan to control the media and the message because we know they awarded the Toronto Star a sole source contract to pay the Star journo’s to “cover” Parliamentary Committee meetings. Cos you know – only the Star is capable of reporting on Trudeau. (read spreading propaganda) Thank goodness this source contract was blocked by the ombudsman. https://www.blacklocks.ca/ombudsman-kills-contract/?fbclid=IwAR2sN5PRrNQ5_oyHYg91FXI11RiDJ-JERaVSbi_4WK4EvIJe3nzyFmlt5oc A federal agency yesterday cancelled a $355,950 sole-sourced contract to pay Torstar Corporation reporters to attend public meetings. Authorities claimed only the Toronto Star was “capable”. The cancellation followed a formal complaint by Blacklock’s to Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic.

If Trudeau signs it - you can bet that our activist courts will start to consider the "aspirations" that we committed to. So - in spite of any and all assurances, we will - as usual - be at the mercy of the courts thanks to the influence of unelected elites at the UN and the worst PM in Canadian history. We are sleep-walking to a Canada that no one will recognize.

A column in today's Globe and Mail ("To right-wingers, the Global Compact for Migration motion is a sign the sky is falling again") castigates critics on grounds that, well, they're overreacting because the pact is essentially legally meaningless anyway. Whaaaat? So why are we signing it if it has no practical force or effect? Is it just more virtue signalling on the part of Trudeau's government or are Canadian policies going to be impacted by our membership in this club? Even the G&M columnist criticizes the tone and content of much of the pact's verbiage, noting that aspects of the pact, including language could serve to restrict the ability of media to criticize immigration policy, are essentially untenable in a democracy. Oh well, it looks like the globalists will have their way on this as seems to be the common practice under Trudeau. Hopefully next year's election will replace our current ruling party and we'll get a sensible government that rejects this kind of globalist nonsense.

This is simply a plan to replace current (expensive) populations in the West with those (cheaper ones) from mainly Islamic countries...with the current population paying for the replacement, of course. Trudeau thinks it's a grand idea.