dialamah

Islamic extremists are a concern, no doubt. But declaring that because Muslims hold beliefs not so dissimilar from fundamental Christians they are fanatics and must be prevented from entering Canada is ridiculous, imo. You have made your position clear that you have concerns about terrorism and fundamentalism, but you have also made it clear that you don't blame all Muslims and you don't deny them the ability to progress. I appreciate that, even if I don't entirely agree with your risk assessment. I agree that domestic violence occurs in all ethnic and religious group. I think domestic violence is more related to economic stability and social supports then either country of origin or religion. Did you see that link about domestic violence in Calgary increasing as the oil industry plummeted? But such information is ignored and dismissed by those intent on painting a group as blackly as possible. Using culture or religion as an excuse to abuse someone else should be completely ignored by the court, imo. Even if true in their country, its not true here and they need to understand that. Your experience and viewpoint are an important aspect, too. I appreciate that you personally believe in individual responsibility when someone breaks our laws, and don't judge everyone by what one member of their "group" does. Being a White, mainstream Canadian woman, I am fortunate that I do not need that assurance but I very much appreciate your recognition that some might - including friends I have who are neither white, nor mainstream. I also believe that mostly thee law strives to do what is right, fair and maybe even moral, but is also composed of humans and so sometimes there is failure. You make me wish I was Muslim, so I would be deserving of this praise. Still, the Muslims you describe are like my Egyptian family and the Muslims I know in Canada. I believe most Canadians are like you as well, perhaps concerned but reasonable and not assuming every Muslim is an incipient terrorist.

When I came to this forum two years ago, I wasn't too clear on the differences between left and right. I understood we had a Liberal and Conservative party, both of whom I voted for at different times. But beyond that, I thought we were kinda the same. It took months before I recognized who was left and who was right on this forum. What I eventually saw was a very marked difference between left and right, overall, in the posts here. It seemed to me that the right complains about a lot of stuff, blames everyone else - especially the left - for what they don't like, even stuff that is he result of conservative ideology, and they take every opportunity to insult and demean anyone they consider left, and rarely offer any moderate or mediating suggestions. Not to mention their unwillingness to help people they consider 'undeserving'. By contrast, it seemed to me the left used facts to support their points, resorted to insults and demeaning comments less often than the right, used humor, admitted error among their own and even offered mediating ideas - few of which were even acknowledged, let alone accepted. The behavior on this board defined my perception of left and right, because I didn't come here with a particular political ideology and I think that is something right-wingers should think about before they start attacking me for stating plainly what I saw. And maybe instead of demanding that its all 'up to the left", the RW should try some conciliation and mediation as well. Qualifying statements: 1. Two or three RW are not as described above 2. Two or three LW are not as described above 3. I assume this board attracks only the most partisan RW element and so they are probably not representatibive of RW across Canada. 4. LW on this board seem most like the Canadians I have met throughout my life and whose politics I did not know. It is extremely unlikely I met nothing but left-wingers in almost 60 years. So maybe the RW element here is more extreme than the majority of Canadians.

Leftist media and leftists, too, I think.

I don't suppose you have any memory of Obama spending years dealing with obstruction from Republicans, constant attacks on his lineage, or the way the Republicans took the country to the brink of shutting down at least twice, that I recall. Yet somehow, he managed to get things done and violence did not become a huge problem, either from the right or the left. But now the Republicans are in power and actually hold more power than Obama did, do they not? Both house and senate, as I recall, a concentration of power that Obama never achieved. Under the Republicans, nothing get done, chaos reigns in the White House, their 'leader' threatens to shut down government if he doesn't get his way. Violence ramps up, starting with Trump's rallies - which he conveniently blames on the left, despite his recorded words egging on his supporters to beat up objectors. When a right-wing person kills someone, that's the left's fault too, it seems - because they showed up. This reminds me of the excuses of a man who beats up his wife: You made me do it, so it's your fault! Really bizarre thought processes, that's for sure.

"Rampaging mobs" is not the only way in which extremists exhibit their violence. You chose to blame the police for failing to prevent the murder of the woman in Charlottesville.

It's the right who has proven themselves even more violent than even Islamic extremists in the States and in Canada. My personal opinion is that the antifa should be shut down by the police whenever they show up. Still, the right-wing's attempts to deflect about how 'bad' the left is, while completely excusing or ignoring the behavior and activities of their own extremists is rather telling.

The problem with this is that you assume Islam teaches it's adherents to murder people for being gay and for being apostate. Yet, my sister, her husband and all her in-laws believe firmly believe that the only justification for killing someone else is if they attack first. That means that while they may disapprove of homosexuality, or apostasy, they would not support killing people for it. So your preferred screening shuts out those who are not fanatics by your definition. It's as logical as a feminist promoting the idea that all men should be castrated because some men rape.

Why do so many people come out to oppose racism? I know! They must have been paid!

Parody about Trump, set to the Sounds of Silence. Enjoy! Unless you like Trump, then you'll have to weep.

So annoying when old people want to sit down.

I was uncomfortable with guys who were too much younger or older than me. I'd say within 5 years either way was my comfort zone. Lots of guys look for women significantly younger, 10+ years. I think there's a psychological effect when someone joins a dating site; they see all those people and have an unconscious assumption that they'll be able to pick and choose any one of those people and get a positive response. When that doesn't happen, they are disappointed and some become bitter. They seem to forget that other people have preferences too, and assume the fault is with the other person (or the entire other gender) rather than their expectations. I spent about 3.5 years online dating, contacted probably 100s of guys, dated about 40 either once or for a few weeks, and met two with long-term potential for me. You have to go in with the attitude that you will "meet" lots of people - most of whom won't be suitable for some reason - and a very few who will be. Most of my experiences were positive, but that was probably because I didn't expect too much from any single encounter. For anyone seriously considering joining a dating site, don't put in your profile these kinds of statements: "Liars need not apply", "only serious responses", "cheaters stay away", etc. This doesn't persuade the ill-intentioned to ignore you, instead it tells them that you have been taken advantage of previously and might be worth a shot to take advantage of again.

Muslim morning after kit.

Seem to recall very similar things being said about kids of my generation by their elders.

Part of the problem is also the fear that permeates our culture. Men attacking/raping women, children being abducted, men being conned by women, each a tragedy, but at the same time not the norm. However dramatic media reports make us think they are because we aren't made aware of the millions of people who go about their daily life without anything bad happening.

I always thought being principled meant doing the right thing, even if the other person didn't. If "they" ignore human rights and we think that gives us the right to ignore human rights too, then we are no different than "them".

Yup, and it works. I know several people who have created successful relationships with people they met on a dating site. A couple of those relationships are at the 15 year mark, and a few more are at least a decade. I met my guy 8 years ago on POF.

Or the tree you are hidung behind.

These aren't really antiquitues though, most having been erected when racial tensions were at their highest during Jim Crow era and during the 60s. They seemed to be more of a reminder and glorification of a slave-owning era than anything else. On the other hand, Confederate General Robert Mahone had a distinguished army career and was considered a potential successor to R.L. Lee is completely ignored and even vilified. Why? Because after the war ended he supported Black emancipation. Thus, you won't find statues of him in honor of either his army career or his work to improve the lives of 1000s of Black Americans. ISIS tears down ancient remembrances of Islam from a period when it was a progressive movement in the world, because they don't want that remembered. They want their own dark and destructive ideology in its place. Tearing down statues of Confederate war heroes who supported an ideology of slavery and inequality is more akin to the removal of statues of Saddam Hussein, to which nobody objected.

You and your denial of reality. Here is how Nazis feel about Muslims today: https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2017/08/24/im-a-nazi-self-proclaimed-nazi-canadian-man-abuses-muslim-woman-in-manitoba

I see. So you aren't really non-partisan: Democrats/Liberals = bad, Republicans/Conservatives = good. Too bad, I thought you had some interesting things to say but if you are just another "My side, right or wrong!", I'm no longer interested. Ciao.

Yes, many/most politicians on both sides of the aisle are hypocrites who are paid public money, and shaft the little guy. If you think this behavior is limited to democrats, you aren't paying attention.

I think its both. There certainly aren't any Republicans/Conservatives going out of their way to change a culture that pursues wealth at all other cost, but mostly at the cost of education and health of the lower economic group while distracting them with stupid and petty issues - like bathroom bills. Which is what you are accusing the Democrats/Liberals of, is it not?

I am sad that I have to agree.