Civis Romanus sum
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Civis Romanus sum
-
-
Canada is on it's way to having more deaths than births. It will take immigration to overcome that. Can't make it any simpler. The immigration system works on points. Skill levels result in more points.
Hi. I'm still confused. We're having more deaths than births because of an aging population. Where is the sense, please, in bringing over a lot of new seniors to die here? Also, aren't people sponsored by their families exempt from the points system? I'm pretty sure they are.
-
I think that taxes are too complicated as it is. I would prefer a simple, flat tax along with a VAT.
-
I think you can hopefully figure out the answer to that yourself. However that's not the plan.
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. If the avowed goal is to counteract our aging population why is Canada bringing in 40,000 seniors each year, and why have the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party promised to make it easier for people to bring in their parents and grandparents?
Is it that the stated goal is not considered very important?
-
As has been pointed out, even Harper gets the idea when it comes to immigration. So there is some hope.
Hi. Please explain to me how we help to offset our aging population by bringing in seniors from other countries. Thanks.
-
The jet age started during or just prior to World War II. Our immigration policies are mostly from the 60s and 70s.
But our thoughts on immigration are much older. We look back on when most immigrants were from the UK and Europe and see that they assimilated and assume new immigrants will too. But this isn't an island in the ocean far from home any more. They can get home and back again in a day, can talk to people back home, watch TV from back home, and hold onto their old culture more.
If a little girl went to school in a chador thirty years ago all the other kids would stare at her and ask her why she was wearing something so silly. She'd want to be like them, want to be like Canadian kids, and would beg her parents not to wear foreign gear. Now if a girl goes to school in a chador it's nothing surprising. Lots of kids in school are wearing them. If you look at some urban classes 80% of the class is foreign born or the children of immigrants who are being raised in their immigrant parents culture. How are they supposed to assimilate when the class is more foreign than Canadian?
-
Pretty much.
And when a woman does something amazingly dumb due to some emotional reason, can we also say well, that's just a woman acting like a woman?
-
ahahahaha, that's pure gold! Do you have any more?
Tattoos are essentially graffiti. Most of them aren't very good, and almost none qualify as art. Nor is human skin an appropriate canvas. I know two women who have multiple tattoos. One got them because she hates how she looks, especially after babies gave her bad stretch marks. The other used to be a stripper.
Tattoos are mostly an expression of the rebellion of the young who all want to do what all their peers are doing so they'll win approval from them. lolz
-
I don't agree with your opinion at all. It's pretty much classic sexism but you have couched in in your own perspective so unless you post some facts there isn't much to say here.
How about the fact there are no capable, strong female leaders who inspire? There have never been any in Canada. All the current crop are miserable failures. The one female prime minister we have had lost an election essentially because she was too busy making out with her new boyfriend.
-
My understanding is that the physical requirement for most jobs has changed with the advent of technology
Yes certainly. Farming used to be back breaking work. Now there is all kinds of machinery to help. Still and all, there are times when a farmer needs his strength to lift and carry and control powerful equipment. Most of the building trades still need a lot of strength, too, as do jobs like police, fire and soldier. Women 'can' do it, but not as well as men. All these are dominated by men because of the need for strength. Teaching and nursing are dominated by women because those are nurturing professions.
Many of the preconceptions of the frailty of women has been proven to be incorrect as are the assumptions of a different generic emotional profile.
I disagree. Women are more emotional, more prone to panic, more prone to crying and breakdowns. Whenever some awful accident happens, you'll see the men rushing forward to help, not the women. Women run away from perceived danger. Men take charge of things. Women form committees. Men lead, women seek consensus (approval). Men inspire and persevere. Women give up because it's too hard. Why are there few women at the top of politics or business? Because it's too hard, requires too much of their time away from families (caring and nurturing) and they don't like the tough, elbows-out environment.
What do women look for in men today? The same thing they looked for 100,000 years ago. They want a man with broad shoulders who will protect them from wild animals, and preferably tall, for long legs help in hunting. A good hunter/provider is what all women seek, even though those physical abilities and traits are essentially meaningless in terms of today's world. Women want men who are tough. Women will be drawn to a strong man who beats them rather than a man who they perceive is too wimpy to protect them.
-
One of the universal traits of beauty is clear, unblemished skin - of whatever hue. Marring that with ugly looking blotches of fading ink is one of the dumbest things anyone can do, especially a woman. There is a reason those popular tattoos at the small of the back became known as 'tramp stamps' and you can see them in porn videos and at strip clubs all the time. Women who get such tattoos tend to be more slatternly than other women. The tramp stamps are an advertisement of their sexual availability and their desire for sexual attention.
-
I do not believe that women get an equal chance at promotion and employment.
Why should they? Women are not equal to men, never have been, never will be. Women are physically weaker, and cannot do physical jobs as well as men. The are not leaders. Women are not risk takers. Women are nurturers. When women are in leadership positions they either act like nagging mommies or just follow policies and regulations. They don't inspire loyalty, don't have leadership skills, and rarely ever think outside the box or initiate new ideas. They are also highly emotional, play favourites and make enemies much more easily than men. And most of the people they are enemies with are other women, because instinctive they see other women as threats to them. Women are more educated than they were 50,000 years ago, but are still guided by the same emotions they had when living in caves. In the entire history of Canada there have been very few female politicians of any note or ability. There are none on the political landscape today.
-
OK...so what did Canada use to get all that mining and oil services plundering around the world ? Free donuts from Timmy's ?
Just because crazy people make stupid statements about the United States that doesn't mean a logical comeback is saying stupid things about Canada, unless you're twelve.
-
Does this mean you're against C51?
It means I don't give a damn what happens to terrorists or those who sympathize with them.
-
This institution means nothing to me. Sorry, I couldn't care less what they think about our governance. They're list of anti-democratic partner countries is impressive though! Lol.
Yeah, Russia is a member, so is Turkey. And they're doing reports on how Canada's laws don't meet up with their standards for freedom? Bah!
-
The RCMP has decided to release 18 seconds of a video that the shooter had made during the assault. It is still sitting on a video coverage of what happened in the commons - who shot who, who said what, etc. It has just recently been revealed that an OPP officer "emptied his gun" at the (dead or wounded or armed or disarmed or giving up or trying to kill again or ???) shooter.
If there is no security issue then why is this video being withheld?
Because it would be indecent, and no western government ever releases such video. What is it you want to see, his head exploding into pieces and blood splashing all over the floor?
Every day we see video of people being shot, killed, maimed etc.
I don't know what the hell you're looking at but I certainly don't see that every day, nor do I want to.
I understand, however, that there are places on the internet that cater to your particular fetish. I suggest you go visit them.
I do not trust this government or the RCMP to make decisions on what we should or should not be privy to. Video is the most honest, objective and revealing method of describing a shooting. If it is being suppressed than there is a reason - a reason our government and RCMP choose to not share with us.
Another nutty conspiracy theory! This place is full of kooks!
-
Well said.
Frame that.
And just to clarify ... the "predations" involve raping and pillaging the resources of poor countries, dispossessing and displacing people and causing civil strife in those countries, then bribing and arming those who will suppress dissent and give the multinationals get safe access to the resources.
It's a win-win for the multinational resource corporations and the arms 'war industry'.
.
What a huge, heaping load of crap. Nothing either of you say is supported by any evidence, just your feverish, conspiracy minded imaginations.
-
Since before 9-11, the USA has been developing the terrorism myth to aid it in its continuing predations upon the poor countries and the poor people of the world.
As any thinking person can see, if they care enough to look, and it doesn't even require that close of a look, just what a huge myth it is.
Your cite not only does not support your statement it has absolutely nothing to do with your statement.
Your cite has to do with specific cases of Guantanamo detainees. There's nothing in there about how this could or would or might aid the US in preying on poor countries.
This gives us cause to wonder about your "any thinking person" claim, as in What in the hell is he thinking anyway?
Just ask yourself, considering the wide availability of guns in the USA, why aren't there numerous, daily even, "terrorist" attacks upon the citizenry at large?
Because most American Muslims have it pretty good and don't think shooting someone in a mall is going to get them to heaven.
Because the whole narrative is a government sop, yet another invented, phoney boogeyman charade.
I've noticed that those who believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in lots of conspiracy theories. The world is a seething mass of dark forces conspiring and plotting and doing all kinds of weird and awful things, none of which anyone normal knows about.
Indeed, this whole bit of nonsense about terrorism is nothing more than reinvented McCarthyism, with a new boogeyman.
The people who died in terrorist acts in New York and Boston and Florida might disagree with you.
-
Perhaps, but you can toss them in jail the minute they step on Canadian soil. We have a precedent in Omar Khadr - don't we?
No, we don't. He was convicted of killing a US medic in a US court while in a place he shouldn't even have been living. No one who tried to leave Canada has ever been arrested so there's no reason to think someone who leaves and comes back could be arrested either.
-
Please explain what errors you see in the material and why you believe them to be errors.
No one is going to bother to argue the citations and opinions you post from psychopaths and maniacs and other freaks and losers.
If the US was as evil as you say they are, and any of this was remotely true, they'd have silenced all these freaks years ago.
To anyone but you that might be a clue.
-
What was sickening was the gross propaganda, using the bodies and families of that tragedy to whip up support for Harper and his bunch.
None of which happened.
-
Omar how is the white mans guilt. It seems to be bothering you big time.
What makes you think he's white?
-
Yes, as allies of the Crown.
As in Canada makes money and the indigenous nations hold their hands out for welfare?
-
Just to repeat what you ignored ... in international law Indigenous Nations exist within states.
In Canada, so does the Quebecois nation.
.
Are you really taking the unbelievably stupid position that the French are indigenous?
-
I wonder what the OSCE had to say about member nation Denmark's undemocratic anti-free speech rules where a judge bluntly told an MP that truth was no defense as he convicted him of insulting Muslims.
Section 266b of the Danish penal code reads "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.
Imagine that. If you say something which someone feels insulted or denigrated, even if it's true, you can still be punished.
I bet the OSCE isn't criticizing Denmark, though. I bet they have no problem with these kinds of laws.
Harper's tax credits..good or bad?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
But most people do not have capital gains so would pay no taxes. And how would this make anything simpler with respect to the varying tax brackets?
What could be simpler than a flat tax along with a VAT?