Civis Romanus sum
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Civis Romanus sum
-
-
How did the Conservatives miss this one? An ad designed to show Harper's economic acumen featured the CLOSED CAMARO ASSEMBLY PLANT in Ontario. This closure resulted in 1,000 direct, high pay job losses. With the millions in donations the Tories receive one would expect better research on ad symbolism.
And round one goes to - not the Conservatives.
Probably filmed before the Liberal's incompetence in Ontario caused the plant to close.
It's very difficult for the federal party to improve Canada's economy when you have feeble minded idiots at the provincial level seemingly doing everything then can to destroy their own province's economy. It's particularly hard when it's in the largest province in Canada. The government of Ontario has done everything in its power to make the development of new mines difficult, if not impossible, to make forestry less profitable, and to destroy the provinces manufacturing base. Hard to see how this is Harper's fault. Meanwhile in Quebec, their economy continues to be fouled up and slowed down by french language rules and anti-business regulations. Seen the oil development in Quebec? No? Because they won't allow it.
-
There are two groups of desperate Muslim boat people at sea right this very moment. The lucky ones are off the coast of Europe, whose European Christian people have made a concerted effort to rescue them, feed, clothe and shelter them.
http://www.dw.de/eu-ships-rescue-more-than-3400-migrants-from-mediterranean/a-18425347
The unlucky ones were the ones trying to reach Muslim countries in southeast Asia. Their reception has been quite a bit different. They've been refused permission to land. Military vessels have warned them off, by gunfire when necessary. Indonesian fishermen have been warned not to pick up these refugees even if they're in the water and drowning, on pain of having their ships seized. Malaysia has closed its coat and warned any refugees they will be arrested, imprisoned and sent home to Burma.http://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/un-despair-over-lack-rescues-83977
What happened to that universal brotherhood the Muslim world is so famous for? Muslims in Canada, the US and the West have been willing to murder their fellow citizens out of outrage that our countries are harming Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. Every western embassy in the world, it seems, has to have protection from Muslim car bombs and suicide bombers because Muslims are furious at our mistreatment of them.
Do you think Indonesia has to worry about that? Or Malaysia? Or Syria or Sudan? Nobody is hijacking their planes or blowing up their embassies abroad. There are no thundering denunciations from the Muslim world about their abuse of human rights (maybe because there are no Muslim governments which respect human rights).
If a Jew accidentally bumps into a Muslim on the street the Muslim world is howling for blood, but if a Muslim cuts off another Muslim's head and dances around with it the Muslim world shrugs without care. Scores of resolutions condemning Israel are pushed through the UN every year by the Islamic block, allegedly because of their abuse of human rights. But every single Muslim nation on Earth abuses human rights. And non-government actors abuse it even more. All Muslim military groups rebelling against a government or fighting with each other are incredibly violent towards civilians and each other. Prisoners are routinely tortured and murdered, and women raped. And it doesn't matter if these rebels are in Africa, Asia, Western Asia or the Middle East. They are defined by their bloodthirsty actions against their fellow Muslims as if they are trying to outdo each other in barbarism.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/boko-haram-claims-baga-massacre-and-threatens-nigerias-neighbours
So it seems to me the Muslim world's outrage is not so much based on any sort of brotherly love or sense of unity, but more a kind of machismo driven arrogance and pride of belonging such as we see in biker gangs and street thugs. Oh, the Hells Angels will kill each other and beat each other but let anyone else dare threaten one and they'll rush to defend that member. The same goes for street gangs. These young Muslim men expressing their outrage at Canada and other western nations out of a sense that they must protect their fellow Muslims never rise to do so against threats from within, only without. So their outrage isn't so much religious but mindless nationalistic bravado. -
There are two groups of desperate Muslim boat people at sea right this very moment. The lucky ones are off the coast of Europe, whose European Christian people have made a concerted effort to rescue them, feed, clothe and shelter them.
The unlucky ones were the ones trying to reach Muslim countries in southeast Asia. Their reception has been quite a bit different. They've been refused permission to land. Military vessels have warned them off, by gunfire when necessary. Indonesian fishermen have been warned not to pick up these refugees even if they're in the water and drowning, on pain of having their ships seized. Malaysia has closed its coat and warned any refugees they will be arrested, imprisoned and sent home to Burma.
What happened to that universal brotherhood the Muslim world is so famous for? Muslims in Canada, the US and the West have been willing to murder their fellow citizens out of outrage that our countries are harming Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. Every western embassy in the world, it seems, has to have protection from Muslim car bombs and suicide bombers because Muslims are furious at our mistreatment of them.
Do you think Indonesia has to worry about that? Or Malaysia? Or Syria or Sudan? Nobody is hijacking their planes or blowing up their embassies abroad. There are no thundering denunciations from the Muslim world about their abuse of human rights (maybe because there are no Muslim governments which respect human rights).
If a Jew accidentally bumps into a Muslim on the street the Muslim world is howling for blood, but if a Muslim cuts off another Muslim's head and dances around with it the Muslim world shrugs without care. Scores of resolutions condemning Israel are pushed through the UN every year by the Islamic block, allegedly because of their abuse of human rights. But every single Muslim nation on Earth abuses human rights. And non-government actors abuse it even more. All Muslim military groups rebelling against a government or fighting with each other are incredibly violent towards civilians and each other. Prisoners are routinely tortured and murdered, and women raped. And it doesn't matter if these rebels are in Africa, Asia, Western Asia or the Middle East. They are defined by their bloodthirsty actions against their fellow Muslims as if they are trying to outdo each other in barbarism.
So it seems to me the Muslim world's outrage is not so much based on any sort of brotherly love or sense of unity, but more a kind of machismo driven arrogance and pride of belonging such as we see in biker gangs and street thugs. Oh, the Hells Angels will kill each other and beat each other but let anyone else dare threaten one and they'll rush to defend that member. The same goes for street gangs. These young Muslim men expressing their outrage at Canada and other western nations out of a sense that they must protect their fellow Muslims never rise to do so against threats from within, only without. So their outrage isn't so much religious but mindless nationalistic bravado.
-
I still submit that we are making a mistake in stopping these individuals from leaving. If we know who they are, let them go and cancel their passports so they cannot come back if they survive.
That is not legal. You cannot keep Canadian citizens from returning to Canada for any reason.
-
Well I am sure the Indians would not mind you white people just give them back their land and go back to your country.
This is a deeply racist response. Do you think citizenship is based on race? Do you believe newcomers to Canada have fewer rights than those whose parents were born here?
-
The report on the law enforcement response is out. Some really bad communications. We were lucky that some of the police were not shooting at each other.
Also revealed that an RCMP officer emptied his gun at the shooter after the shooter was shot. I always thought there was a reason why the tape of what happened did not reach the public. Was the guy disarmed and trying to surrender when shot? Did he act or say things that may have indicated mental illness? I have no doubt that the police acted in a way they thought was best - but why not release those tapes of what actually happened at the site?
Because the ignorant public is filled with wimps, whiners and hand-wringing pacifists who don't really want to know what violence looks like, even if the violence is needed to protect them in their cozy lives.
People don't want to see where hamburgers and hot dogs come from. They know its not pretty but they want them anyway.
-
As I said above: what would parliament look like if all of these measures where split into separate bills? Do you really think that much would change if the resulting work load means each of these measures is rushed through because there is not enough parliamentary time to deal with the workload?
Members of parliament spend a lot of time on useless nonsense of no value to the taxpayers. You could introduce each of these measures separately and give a few days to debate them. Nothing said after that point is new anyway so I wouldn't care if they used closure. But at least each bill would e separated out and could be properly voted on as is the purpose of a parliament.
-
The people making $100k in this chart are actually further above the cutoff for The Sunshine List, which only supports my point further.
You are confused by a simplistic chart. It does not show 'take home pay' but income. You are looking at line for 'the top 20%" and taking a grossly distorted picture from that. The numbers you are looking at, and the improvement in them, are disproportionately influenced by the wealthy, who are a miniscule percentage of the 'top twenty' but make extremely high incomes. Those incomes have been improving better than everyone elses because a large percentage of that income is from investments, which have been doing extremely well do to the way the various federal agencies through the world have been flooding the markets with cheap money and buying bonds.
-
I havent heard a lot on this issue myself of late, other than that the same groups who represent the people who brought the case against the previous law that was struck down by the SC unanimously, claim the current law is equally as unconstitutional. I know that a large group of TO city councillors petitioned Wyne to refer the case to the Ontario Appeals court, but she claimed it was a federal issue. I suppose we will have to see what happens when a case is tried.
Premier Wynn referred it to the legal people at the Attorney General's office who told her it was their judgement that it was entirely constitutional and that she had no option but to enforce it.
-
I like carrying guns around sometimes and have absolutely no criminal record, and have never hurt anyone in my life beyond
the odd fist fight when I was younger.
There are specific legal and acceptable reasons to 'carry guns around' and this legislation is unrelated to them.
If, on the other hand, you are saying you like to illegally carry weapons around then I'd suggest you belong in prison.
-
Problem is this has been shown to be ineffective in reducing gun crime, and it generates hardened criminals.
It has NOT been shown to be ineffective at all. You are taking a general consensus that overly harsh punishments do not significantly decrease crime and applying that to a specific situation where its applicability is questionable..
Increasing a prison sentence from say 3-10 years has no deterent effect what-so-ever,
It has the effect of keeping dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous people in prison and away from me and my family.
And your nonsense about forced labor camps belongs in the
Soviet Union 80 years ago.
A number of nations have hard labour laws today, including democratic nations.
-
Not according to the Canadian charter of rights.
LOL. Have you ever read it? Do you think you actually understand it?
Never mind. I really don't care. It's never been my thought we ought to be encouraging the lumpen proletariat to participate in decisions of state anyway.
-
Sounds like you have conservative values
WWWTT
I have patrician values.
-
I see that this thread has been completely derailed. Perhaps it should be renamed.
-
The story of Cincinnatus holds great attraction; that of the reluctant and selfless hero who reluctantly stands up to save his people.
I'm guessing you say that sarcastically in terms of being an opponent of plebians.
The fact then is that the plebes, then and now, tend towards ignorance. They know no better what is in the interest of the country as a whole than so many cattle.
-
Looks like Harper is not getting the message from the Supreme Court. The SC has just shot down
mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mandatory-minimums-for-gun-crimes-struck-down-1.2325934
Do you agree with this decision?
The policy needed to significantly deter gun crimes would be on of absolute intolerance. No excuses, no hesitation. Punishment must be brutal and immediate for those who buy, sell or smuggle restricted weapons. That would be many, many years in prison at hard labour.
One of the failures of the Harper government is that it has not made proper use of prisoners for this purpose. Time in prison should not be spent in relaxation but in brutally hard work which benefits and profits the state.
-
Actually, in my opinion, when you vote, you are agreeing to our political system.
And when you fail to vote your opinion and value are both null quantities.
-
Perhaps they will, but I have a feeling just as strong a force will be "Anybody But Harper". I think you're going to see a
lot more strategic voting. It's purely anecdotal, but a few weeks ago one of my coworkers, a staunch NDPer very much in the
Left of Left of Centre category (very pro-union, very anti-corporate and in the past has viewed Liberals as basically the
Tory-lite Party), suggested that he and the wife are seriously thinking of voting Liberal if they see that a Liberal has the
best chance of beating the Tory candidate (my riding has been Reform/Tory for over twenty years).
There'll be some of that but for the most part, not enough Canadians have sufficient interest-in politics to consider strategic voting.
It suggests to me that the Tories' worst enemy at this point isn't Trudeau and the Liberals, or Mulcair and the NDP, but rather themselves. I'll be honest in saying that while I think the Harper government has botched many things, and most certainly it has squandered its majority term with little to show for it, I can't say with any honesty that is the worst government we've ever had. But it's the governing style, the feeling that Harper has turned the PMO into a pack of hyper-partisan mandarins who have effectively sidelined many Cabinet Ministers (one of the rumors of Baird's departure is that on key files Harper had essentially taken over the portfolio personally and sidelined his Minister). There is a brutishness to the Harper Tories which often makes even reasonably sensible decisions look harsh, partisan and inequitable.
The lasting image I have of Jean Chretien is his snarling face as he tried to strangle a diminutive unemployed protester. He was completely unforgiving of anyone who dared question his rule. People seem to have short memories if they forget that. Chretien was more than willing to use the powers of the Prime Minister in vindictive efforts to punish those who got in his way, and to reward those who were obedient. The real difference between his style of governance and Harper's is that the media largely did not question things done by a Liberal PM simply because he was liberal. The media portrayal of Harper falls into line with their learned narrative of the Left that conservatives are brutish and intolerant, not kindly, gentle and tolerant like liberals. There is very little to support this if you compare Harper's actions with Chretien's.
-
For those few people that choose to vote these days, I have heard various reasons for their decision;
- Agree with party policy
- A local issue
- Like the leader of party
- Support the local candidate
- Name recognition of local candidate (family name)
- Family has always voted for that party
- Try to make sure a particular party does not get a majority
I believe all are legitimate reasons as long as they take the time to vote.
You believe that 'family has always voted for that party' is a legitimate reason to vote? It is a 'reason' which is exempt of reason! Or thought or judgement.
Most of the others are little better. How does one 'like' the leader of a party one has never met? Name recognition? What sort of inane reason is that to vote for someone? Voting to prevent another party you don't like from success? What is that but the bleating of the dull witted and vindictive? Local issues are likewise idiotic reasons to vote in a federal election.
For your enlightenment, the primary valid reason for voting for one candidate or the other, for one party or the other, is that the preferred candidate or party will do a better job in guiding the country over the following years than any other candidate or party. The selected party or person is more capable, has more integrity, more honor and honesty, possibly, or is less blinkered by absurd ideological views in its thinking. The only intelligent point of voting is that your selected candidate will, in your view, leave the country in better shape come the following election than the alternatives.
Of course, an equally valid if more venal reason would be that one is voting for a person or party which has a particular policy which will benefit the voter personally.
NDP Make Big Move in Latest EKOS Poll
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
The problem with Mulcair is he's promising everyone everything and has no money to pay for any of it.