Derek 2.0

Not worried the slightest, as Forum polls the Tories low historically, but the trending for both the Tories and Liberals in all of last weeks polls, at the expense of the NDP, should indicate the NDP are in trouble, namely in Ontario and BC..........one has to ask, why are the NDP dropping in two important regions?

Actually, from the previous Forum and Leger (and EKOS and Abacus earlier in the week) polls both the Tories and Liberals have improved, with the NDP dropping an average of 2-4 points in each of the four most recent polls, from each firms previous polls.

It not a distraction at all, but a change in Government rules for asylum seekers, resulting in the decrease in refugee claimants for Canada.

I've no idea , but between Syria and Iraq there are over 10 million displaced people.

Well good thing we don't have such a policy.........as anyone, from any nation, can apply for refugee status in Canada.

Where did I say that?

Sure, but that was in the past, name but one ongoing humanitarian crisis that equates to the goings on in Syria and Iraq.......there are now over 4 million Syrian refugees, with numbers expected to continue to grow......a figure equating to the entire populations of European countries like Ireland, Norway or Finland......

By all means contrast the ongoing abuses within the EU, abuses that equate to more refugee claimants form Europe than Africa and Asia combined.......I guess for some, the loss of pension benefits or refusal of work permits equate to ethnic cleansing in Syria, Iraq or Sudan, or starvation throughout Africa.....

Ok, I read it........an opinion piece by a human rights activists, that compares "human rights violations" in the EU to that of African and Asian nations.......let me know when Europeans start hacking and burning alive other Europeans or hundreds of thousands of European children dying from starvation..........

The policy part was already posed to you Waldo......... Do you think allowing refugees from the EU or the United States to be valid policy?

No, but to your linking to the declined refugee chart........migrants versus refugees I would feel self explanatory, natural geography.......As to apply for asylum into Canada, it must be done at an embassy (via a CIC rep) or Port of Entry.

You say that like its a bad thing, when it actually coincides with new laws that drastically reduce claims from safe countries......under the old system, we received more claims from EU countries than Asian and African countries combined!!! Ironically, with recent events, under the old system, the #1 source country for claims was Hungry.....

To keep this thread on topic, I'll respond here:

I think what is lost in this discussion is the difference between refugees and migrants.......in the case of the branded about image of the dead child, what is lost is that said family wasn't fleeing Syria proper, but Turkish refugee camps for "northern Europe", as is the case for the thousands upon thousands fleeing Hungry for more developed European nations. The reason is clear, once processed in a given nation, said nation is now responsible for said refugee unless they were to be returned home.... I don't blame Syrian refugees for wanting to go to a better country, and once free from danger, picking the best of the lot. Likewise in the case of the dead child's family, being ethnic Kurds, I wouldn't fault them for wanting to leave Islamic Turkey......but with that, once free of danger, said refugees then become economic migrants.......... To your point, the figures as of yet are 20000 Iraqis and ~2000 Syrians .........with the Syrian numbers expected grow to 10000 by 2017. As indicated, most of said displaced people have been privately sponsored, of that I'm to assume from families here in Canada and various religious groups. And no, Mulcair is wrong, for said Syrians wouldn't be refugees if their country wasn't embroiled in a civil war.......furthermore, the NDP's plan for 10k refugees by year end, or Trudeau's plan for 25K right away lack detail.......how do their plans ensure we're not bringing in criminals, terrorists etc? How do they pick and choose which refugees deserve entry into Canada the most? How many of said refugees have an existing support network within Canada? etc

Why an either/or approach? That is akin to addressing the BC wildfires by providing shelter and aid to those displaced, but then not addressing the cause of the displacement, the fires themselves.............Make no mistake, leaving ISIS unchecked, allowing it to grow throughout the region, will result in millions more displaced or killed prior to the natural cessation of the conflict. The NDP/Liberals/Greens are wrong on this file.

Huh? Operation Impact started with the GoC donating and transporting aide months prior to the start of the combat mission in Iraq, and with Syria, the GoC has contributed over $400 million in humanitarian aide, from 2012, towards displaced Syrians, furthermore, an additional ~$200 million towards development projects in Jordan to address the Syrian exodus......... What is telling though is the partisan attacks against Harper for the displaced Syrians.........and not those that actually displaced them. By all means explain how past Liberal/NDP promises would have addressed the root causes of the Syrian diaspora.......

You'd be wrong, as his CPU comes standard with a neural net processor.....a learning computer.

That would appear a truism for centuries, where the advantages of mobility outweigh the negatives. Of course said mech-infantry would also have their own armour in tow. Not a problem, I learned very quickly at BMOQ, playing infantry, that its better to get a ride than walk to work Without a doubt, and the very nature of the Pacific Rim, would/will necessitate a divergence in how we would address such a potential threat.

I'm not saying no forever........

Interesting perspective........The far left base and "orange Liberals" think Mulcair is too right-wing, well Red Tories and Blue Liberals, groups the NDP need, are not baffled by the BS magical math and promises of the NDP....... ------- As a bias, partisan Tory, I have to admit, Trudeau is doing better than I thought (I dunno about the recent escalator add though ) he would and Mulcair is doing worse then I expected.........I think many voters wouldn't buy a 6 year old Buick off of Mulcair, let alone trust him and his party to run a G7 nation.....

I doubt it factored much into the most recent polling........maybe next week? That is what will sink Mulcair........The Tories offer balanced budgets and the Liberal's Keynesian deficits.........The NDP, billions in social programs, with a balanced budget and no clear way to pay for it all........Mulcair would have been better off with Trudeau's approach to "investment".......

Infantry today is as relevant as it was thousands of years ago, that has not changed the slightest. The difference, as how it applies to the Chinese in this example is that the Chinese have employed much the same tactics and doctrine as the Soviets (and in turn countless Arab armies) for decades......namely massive artillery bombardment followed by continual waves of infantry supported by tanks, aircraft etc to achieve a given objective. Now with the Chinese, as opposed to the Soviets, due to the sheer size of their army (including reserves) measured in the millions, has prevented the Chinese from being able to mechanize their entire force through the use of Soviet pattern IFVs and APCs, instead still having divisions of infantry, that at best, would arrive at the battlefield in trucks, trains and even bicycles....but more likely by foot. The Chinese realize that in the advent of a war with an even near peer, such an enormous surplus of classic foot infantry would likely have little utility, and the resources would be better spent elsewhere...... Their air force, at best, could be considered a less experienced Soviet air force of the 80s, their navy isn't much better, but lacking a viable ASW capability, something that even the Soviets had to an extent, their utility against a modern navy with submarines is one of crab food.......... That being said, outside of Japan (sans nuclear weapons) and the Indians, they are the regional superpower with aims to expand their sphere of influence.

Well no, it hasn't, you cited reasons for such violence......then contradicted yourself. Simple, I stated the clear and understandable difference between both nations and the causes of differing levels of gun crime in each nation. Did you not first raise the point of gun owning MLW members opinions and "defense" of gun rights in this thread? One would assume you desired to continue the discussion. As a lifetime endowment member of the NRA, I very much so feel entitled to associate myself with the "winning side", well discussing gun rights/control politics, both in the United States and in Canada. As I've said already, in countless discussions on this topic through the years, both sides of the fence return to the same "talking points", but failing to reach an amicable resolution each time. That would clearly indicate a stalemate, but as evident by reality, the "push" goes to gun owners. So the question returns to at what point does the losing side change their approach to further address the actual causes of gun violence? In this example of the Virginia shooting, in your opinion, outside of unobtainable gun control laws, what other measures could have helped reduce the probability of this violent crime occurring? Clearly the shooter was mentally imbalanced, could it not be said that further access to treatment could have helped mitigate this example, like countless other cases?

You stated access to guns attributed to higher crime rates in the United States, yet when confronted with New Zealand and the access to guns in that country, a country with far lower crime rates, you state New Zealand has lower crime rates, hence lower gun crimes....... So which is it? Guns create crime or crime creates gun violence? So a societies differing culture can lend to increased crime rates? As such, comparing the New Zealand/Canadian/Swiss culture to that of the United States results in a false positive? So why compare crimes rates of the United States, what with its differing culture, to that of other Western Nations? Sauce for the goose and all that......... You talk of logic, as did I........in just several pages are the displays of logic of both sides of this debate........and you wonder why the gun rights camp continues to win in the United States.........

I did read it, and it doesn't address the questions I posed. Hey, "gun culture", as a cause for crime, is your strawman.