Leaderboard

Today is the birth of the best country in the world. We have every reason to celebrate it even in the privacy of our homes if we wish not to risk going out or take part in parties and gatherings. We are coming out of this long pandemic, the economic outlook is much brighter and we look forward to many happy days ahead as we live in the best country in the world where people are judged by the majority based on the size of their hearts and minds rather than the color of their skin or national origin. The country where all citizens are equal before the law and individual freedoms are respected. The country where women are equal and respected by a majority and we can live in the safety of our homes not fearing the security or intelligence agents busting in and arresting innocent people because they don't agree with the ruling government. A country which is prosperous and shares the prosperity with its citizens rather than 99% of the wealth to be in the hands of 1% ruling thieves and so called ruling elite. We have had some bumpy roads in our way in the past and no one claims perfection in Canada but lets work and hope for even better Canada and that the future would be much brighter for all of us. Happy birthday Canada.

Sheesh...settle down warmiacs. "Climate Change" had nothing to do with the Lytton fire. They don't know what caused it but it appeared to have started in the town central. https://globalnews.ca/news/7996127/lytton-wildfire-damage/ And anybody who doesn't know it gets hot - like real hot - when it gets generally hot in a BC summer has never driven through the Fraser Canyon in August. Me and my buddies from the days before Al Gore started brain training NPCs to believe the world would end as a result of nice weather would laugh in your face if you told us Lytton doesn't get abnormally hot in summer. We wouldn't care what some selective bit of questionable data told you.

Nope. Don't get fooled by the illusion of that website. An immigrant that is refused by Quebec, can still be accepted elsewhere in Canada. Also, an immigrant accepted by Quebec, is not guaranteed to be accepted by immigration Canada. Canada has the last word. But this is not the biggest concern here. You voted for them, not us. PE Trudeau and Chrétien? We so disagreed with them that we hold a referendum to separate from the country on both of them. When Chretien was in prime minister, Quebec was voting for the Bloc. Only English speaking people of Quebec were voting 100% for the Liberals. Blame your own fellows, not us. PE Trudeau betrayed us and did the exact opposite of what he promised. We were so disgusted by him that we voted for the Mulroney and the conservative. We were so satisfied that we wiped them out and voted for the Bloc. It is very coward of you to blame us while you admit that your Harper was just the same. We never agreed with PE Trudeau. Even Robert Bourassa was totally against him. It is silly to put on us what they did just become they come from here. While here, we have the same consideration for them that the people in France had for the Nazi's collaborators. All the guys you named, had a huge support from the English people in Quebec and the Ontarians. No way I will endorse their decisions. NO F*CK*NG WAY. Do Quebec was pleased by that? Is doing a referendum to separate is a good way to show our appreciation? Gee Argus. Be smarter than that and look with your eyes. That nation building mostly done by the liberals was not to please one or another, it was to create a non natural nation to justify a system meant to satisfy itself, not the people. They wanted Canada to take a direction where the French would fit and get assimilated. It is ironic because it is the other way around. It is in English Canada, mostly Ontario, that the people swallowed that model. We never agreed to that nation building type. It is not our model. We always valued the concept of multinations of Canada. If the ROC wants to cheer the Queen of England, it is the last of our concerns. You guys can do whatever you want. In a flexible federalism, we share what we have in common and we manage our differences in ourselves. But that is not what the liberals wanted. They wanted a hybrid one size fit all kind of nation because they thought it was the only we to keep us united. Does it work? Not really. But you are only fooling yourself if you keep thinking that guys like me are the same as guys like them. The schools are under the power of the provinces, not the federal. Quebec has the power over its own schools, but not yours. You eny that we teach pride to our students about history, then do the same. Don't blame us for the cowardness or your provincial politicians. Otherwise, you have what you deserve. Get a grip. This is only whining. If you do not want a bilingual country, then let's separate this sh!t. We merge all the french parts of Canada to Quebec and we split. Then you will have your unilingual English country. Otherwise, stop complaining. It is perfectly normal that both languages are required for the federal jobs. It does not advantage Quebec, it advantages the most educated and intelligent people. oh well, then, you are right, it does advantage Quebec. Because Quebec is better at being bilingual than the others. Then don't blame Quebec, blame yourself. You are the one who fail. Or, you pull your head out of your ass and do the right thing. We totally reject PE Trudeau's multiculturalism. Yet, you still associate Trudeau to us. You are your own biggest issue. You are unable to identify the real problem and its origin. You feed your own confusion. But I know why you do that. You do not have the courage to fight your own demons, so you blame us for something, even if we are fighting against it. If Quebec separates, it will only solve the Quebec's problem. It won't change anything to you. You will still face the very same problem with the federal. You think it will be easier without Quebec because you lie to yourself about the big picture. But the reality will catch you up. The liberals won't disappear. The weight of Ontario will increase. The federal will increase its power justified by the fear of other separations and will become more centralized. Quebec can be your greatest ally but you keep on spitting on it. Indeed. Trudeau was very against nationalism. He disdained both sovereignists and Quebec provincial federalists. He hated both Lévesque and Bourassa. It is in his logic of multiculturalism. He believed only in a cultureless state and rule of law. His son is his own product. Justin does not understand that. He just applies it. oh no, that is NOT what the natives said. They said they do not belong neither with Quebec, nor with Canada. They are their own nation, their own culture. Agreements are only for the sake of mutual interests. Right now they have a pretty good deal and they would never give up on that. If they want to separate, they would lose the Paix des Braves, and therefore their shared sovereignty and of course, all income from Hydro-Electricity. You can't manipulate them anymore.

I am not insulting your intelligence, you are peeing on your own intelligence yourself. 99% of the jobs are not concerned by that law. Nothing else is. It only concerns 4 jobs in position of authority. So the religious people wearing symbols can still do it anywhere in public and in all other job types. Not bad for a society that is supposed to fear them. If we feared them, we would forbid it in all or most of the jobs. We would forbid it in public space, etc... You rather sound like you want to incite hatred toward Quebec nation. Despite that the facts are proving otherwise, you invent a fear that does not exist, like if the law would be irrational. On the contrary, your accusations are. You are not even trying to argue on the main point, you try to drift this into illusion of fear. Bad faith or plain stupid? I told you many times. I am ok if you do not agree, but do not splash me with an opinion that is not mine, just to suit your point. This is disrespectful and fallacious. Respect the opinion of the ones you do not agree with. Don't put words in their mouth that they did not say. Do not invent actions they did not do. Do not invent motives they did not have. If you still do, at least, try to demonstrate it instead of just free accusations. The biggest issue here is that you do not respect facts and reality. Is English signs are forbidden? NO. No matter how often you lie, it will never become true. The law says you cannot show a sign in English only. French must comes along. Not replacing English. Yet, you guys still say that English is forbidden. It's not true. You do not have a problem with our law, you have a problem with the reality. English is not forbidden in Quebec, just as well as the Earth isn't flat. Same thing regarding the language spoken in an enterprise. English is not forbidden. What is forbidden, is forcing English on people. If I want my colleague to speak to me in French, that colleague has to comply. But if I am ok that he speaks to me in English, the law can't do anything. Also, that rules is applied only between coworkers living in Quebec. If I speak with a co-worker living in Singapour or Vancouver, the law doesn't apply. You can use the Nazi's technical solution to lie until some people think it is true, bottom line, it will never be true. Yeah, you are talking about the signature of a nation that was teared down less than 30 years before that. A nation who saw its leader hung up. That federation was a great improvement compared to what it was before. But it did not take long that we experienced its downsides. So basically, what you are saying is, the only solution is to separate or use the notwithstanding clause as often as needed. The message is pretty clear.

No issue with forest management, issue with it as a solution to forest fires. Anyway, Canada already has both forest management and wildfire management programs.

Darn it... I didn't see they put my 'News of the day' club up or I would have posted this there. Oh well, next time a city's on fire I will.

You don't want the same opportunities, you want the same results. I believe in equality while you believe in equity. I believe in merit, while you - don't. What about when it IS their own fault? Perfect is the enemy of good. You will never get perfect. But in tinkering with good you can get bad. Your concept of justice is not the same as mine. Mine includes justice for those who screwed up, who are bad people, who are lazy and incompetent and just don't care. You assume everyone who is poor is unjustly so and that's just not true. Your view of misogynistic is also probably unlike mine. Mine involves women being considered equally for a job but not being given preference nor having the job's requirements watered down. Nor does mine involve judging everything which is masculine as toxic. Your views if prevailing, would certainly be better than those in shithole countries. That doesn't mean they're better than what we already had here. Most people carry forward the culture they're born to. The culture most immigrants are born to is backwards in almost all respects. I don't want them creating a culture here. As for accepting ours, that remains to be seen. Canada struggling to absorb immigrants No, that's a cliche based on Canada's past history with immigration. The problem is that up until the 1970s almost all our immigrants came from Europe, which has similar root languages and cultures. Now they mostly come from places who don't even share the alphabet with us and have wildly different cultural and religious beliefs. It remains to be seen if we can assimilate them anywhere nearly as well as we did the Dutch and Germans and Ukrainians. I'm talking about people with a marked preference for the out-group rather than their own. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-white-saviors

Okay but I'm still waiting for how adding millions of people has made it better. There's no evidence that is associated with immigration or an increased population, though. Singapore accepts virtually no immigrants but it's GDP per capita is a third higher. Switzerland's is even higher. Both small countries with almost no immigration. Norway's GDP per capita is also greater than ours. You don't need numbers to have a high GDP per capita What is this bad stat? You're still ignoring the question. You call it isolationist not to want mass immigration? I'm not utterly opposed to immigration. If the immigrants are professionals who can speak the language well, adapt and assimilate well, and make a good enough living to pay more to the taxman than they get in return. But I see no need to import millions of people just to get bigger. Most of the best countries in the world in which to live have small populations. Is it really? In what way? In my father's day a man with a decent, not great job could afford to buy his own house and support a non-working wife and three children. My uncle was an armored car guard and did just that. That's impossible now. If you compare the average wage from 1971 to what it cost to buy a car, a house, or almost anything else including getting a college education, it's much, much harder now. Average income was $18k in 1970 and the average cost of a house was $65k. Average cost of a car $3543. Cost of a year's tuition at university was about $534. Average income today is $54,630 today. Average cost of a house is $716k. Average cost of a car is $40,941. University tuition for one year $6463 https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/ Of the richest 20 countries in the world only the US and Germany are bigger than we are. Most have much smaller populations.

I knew it Michael, your not on the right, or you'd have one as well ,we all have these hats, and it is trendy. Off course face paint is optional. The top photo do you really think he fits the right profile, or would he fit more into the left side...

Hmm, if I hated Canada I'd want to constantly change it - like you do. I'd want to flood it with foreigners so I didn't have to be around Canadians and so its traditions, values and culture were washed away - like you do. I'd constantly disparage its history and institutions - like you do. I'd praise other cultures and defend them against all attacks while attacking our culture and values - like you do. I love the Canada that worked and had a sense of brotherhood, family and community, where people felt a part of something great and growing. Conservatives know that when something is working pretty well it's WAY easier for a change to screw it up than make it better. And most of the changes over the past forty years have screwed it up. A study I posted some time ago talked about the fascinating aspect of white liberals in that they were the only group of any race, ethnicity or political persuasion who demonstrated 'out-group loyalty'. All other groups demonstrated 'in-group loyalty'. But white liberals don't have any and think that sort of thing is terrible. Those are the people who want to change Canada. People who have no loyalty for, and in fact disdain other white Canadians.

You hate Canada; I can tell because you constantly post long screeds about how awful Canada is. Virtually every post you make is a description of how Canada (and Canadians) are such losers, stupid, lazy, lax, far behind other countries, failing economically, failing socially, failing at immigration, failing at integration - yada yada. So you only love the Canada of the past, is that it? If other people love the current Canada, they actually hate Canada? Only people who loved Canada of the past truly love Canada? This makes no f'ing sense. (I don't really think you hate Canada; just hoping to make the point that your sweeping statement that "progressives hate Canada" is stupid, but I doubt you'll get it.)

Freedom of speech? WTF? Listen, you might not agree regarding the place of practice a religion and I respect that, but stop the BS about the freedom of speech. This is so ridiculous. Unconstitutional? You are talking about your constitution that we have no say because you slammed the door in our face. I will care about your constitution only the day will open the book and sit at the table to review it. Until then, it is your constitution that is a joke. Why you guys only focus at hijabs? We had bigger concerns with Kirpans and Turbans. I am telling, no way the Sikh will be able to break our laws regarding the mandatory helmet for bikes like they did in few other provinces. Over me dead body. Regarding the law, you are totally missing the points anyway. This why sometimes I wonder if thinking in english somehow limits the brain capacities, there has to be an explanation. You have all the rights to not agree with us and I have no problem with that, I respect that. But that is not the issue here. You just don't get it. You just don't understand anything. You can understand and do not agree, but you don't get to that level. Or maybe you do but, you are so childish that you prefer to play stupid. English canada and Québec have a very different scope that covers religious rights. What we have in common is, we both agree that everybody can choose its own religion and can practice it as well. The difference between us is the coverage of where you have the right to practice it. For us, it regards the private life (by the way, I am not sure if private life is the appropriate translation of what I have in mind, en français j'utilise l'expression contexte de vie privée) of an individual and/or the community of the same believers. For you, it is extended to all levels of the society. When a person goes to work, or occupies a public job, that person IS NOT in a context of private life. So for us, in such context, one individual does not have the right to use its religious practices. You may do if there are no issues with it, but if there are, you cannot claim a right to practice your religion. That fundamental right is only in a context of private life. The opposite is true as well. A company cannot forbid the practice of a religion if there are no good reasons for it. So out of the private life context, it's neither a right, not forbidden. It's a case by case situation. Unlike you, the right of practicing the religion applies in any possible kind of context. Now regarding bill 21, the rule says that religious symbols are forbidden only in the context of position of authority. It concerns only few number of jobs. The reason why it is required is the exactly the same why it is required that a person in position of authority has no conflict of interests of what-so-ever. Among those who wear a religious symbol, you can classify them into 2 categories. The first one, although they were it, it is not mandatory for them and they do not have an issue removing it if it is required. The second one, they are SO INDOCTRINATED by their religions that they prefer to lose their jobs rather than just removing it. Those people are more afraid of their god than our laws. The problem with them is, if they are facing an issue where our law says one thing, but their religion says the opposite, they will not choose our law, they will choose their religion's law. If they are ready to lose their job for just a symbol, for sure they will make such choice regarding the law as well. That is why we cannot afford to take the risk to let them have position of authority. Any other kind of job or role in our society, they can only pay the consequences of their actions. But in a position of authority, they can do damages. We are filtering them out of those positions. Is it possible to an indoctrinated person to play that role and never face such issue? Yes it is. But I am no gambler and I have nothing to win to take the risk. You wanna be a judge, a policeman or a teacher? Be fully secular. Otherwise, there plently of other kind of jobs you can still do. Again, you have the right to totally disagree with me, but don't be an @$$ by pretending that where are racists attacking people wearing hijabs. Unless this is your thing, twisting reality and spreading hatred with lies.

No. Reconciliation is a moving target. There will always be negative people whose favourite hobby is bitching about how shitty everything and everyone around them is, and making excuses for why they never managed to get their own shit together. We need to be in the days of tuning them out. Their sad saga always starts with: "Back in 1949..." or "In 1793..." and it ends with "and that's why the people who work 60+ hrs a week are doing so much better than I am." I get that it's a tragedy that children died in residential schools but the people who are making the loudest, dumbest noises are the exact people who would have been screaming: "We need to educate those children. We can't let them wander the frozen north, living in the stone age, while we're chillin' in our 19.5 degree living rooms watching TV."

I don't dispute the impact of the idiotic identity politics of the Left in the US. But they have a lot of help from the idiots of the Right. The Republican Party has melted down and lost all traces of its previous conservative beliefs and traditions. It's now basically a populist party which survives on exploiting hot-button social issues and vast amounts of cash from its billionaire corporate backers. Not to mention gerrymandering.

Hmmm. I think you're wrong. Progressives create positive change in society. Conservatives maintain tradition, ensuring change isn't too fast or severe. A successful society needs both. Demonizing progressives by claiming they hate/are destroying Canada is as bad as demonizing conservatives by claiming they want to regress Canada to a time of overt patriarchy and racism. Demonizing the other side is not good for society or our poltical process and is more likely to wreck Canada than either progressive or conservative ideology.

Progressives don't hate Canada; wanting one's country to be better isn't hatred, even if their idea of better isn't yours. You should know better, given the posts you've made and articles you've cited about the damage this kind of dumbassery does to political discourse and adds to polarization.

the warrior culture was honourable, the Indians had their own empires Mohawks, Lakota Sioux, Apache, Comanche but the NDPIndians who side with the Communists throw their own culture under the bus

While we're on the question of government funding and promoting religions, we should not forget the vast amount of money given to the Aga Khan Canada Foundation. " Just over the last nine years, the AKF has received over $472 million from Global Affairs Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (2). For the period including this year, as the economy collapses around us, the AKF received over $31 million! And how much more has the Aga Khan received from Canadians that has not been reported since the Ismailis were resettled here by Pierre Trudeau in 1972 (100)?" "The sad reality is that most of this money will be used to enrich the lives of Ismailis over other people, build Mughal architecture around the world, promote Islam, fund lavish lifestyles and horse racing, and even support a fake god on Earth (3)(4)(5)(99)(101). In 1975, the Aga Khan declared himself to be “the living god” and “the spokesman for almighty Allah,” a concept endorsed by his followers and supporters (6)! But who exactly is this “god” and why is he treated like royalty? " The United Nations: Aga Khan's Throne (Part I: Money Laundering) - Civilian Intelligence Network The amount of taxpayer's money which the government contributed to in effect support Islam in the world is stunning. Now we need to constantly be examining what government is doing with our money as they have proven to be completely irresponsible. We should also be examining exactly what it is the government is doing as it bring aboriginal culture into the public school system in BC (and other provinces). I believe this has been mandated by the BC NDP government.

What settler religion is your second paragraph describing? Stewardship of the Earth is an important tenant of many Christian denominations. You’re setting up Indigenous beliefs as morally superior to non-Indigenous. People are entitled to practice their faith, as our constitution protects religious freedom. Leave it there. You think pre-contact Indigenous communities were safer and more harmonious that colonial ones? If that were so, why didn’t settlers emulate that society and vote to implement its tenants? People have had the democratic choice to do that for over 150 years. No takers? Indigenous hunted and killed too. Some also farmed in temporary settlements. Property wasn’t an issue until more and more immigrants came, so I guess we should ask whether immigration should’ve been banned in order to protect Indigenous races. Sounds like a form of suprematism.

Lies are all you have, aren't they? I have said no such thing you disingenuous POS.

As for this apparent targeted attack...don't know a damn thing about it and do not subscribe to the collective guilt that all non-Muslims are supposed to feel now...on command I might add. Waving dead children under my nose and telling me I'm to blame somehow isn't gonna fly.

That Islam's supporters here need to defend Islam's violent practices rather than boast about its peaceful practices is rather indicative of the general "goodness" of Islam.

Indeed...shut-up and pay no mind the the beheadings.

Himmler referred to Islam as a warrior's religion...he seemed to understand it better than some folks around here.

If you're not in agreement with dialamah, she's the judge that gets to convict you.