Jump to content

Jariax

Member
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Jariax

  1. First, I don't t think Spanky is saying people owe HIM their money, he's saying they should pay more in taxes. Taxes are necessary, for roads, schools, hospitals, military etc. Now, other than a few right wingers, pretty much everyone agrees that the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle-class and poor. Few people are saying everyone should pay a fixed amount. However, there are some libertarians suggesting everyone should pay a flat tax rate. Progressive tax rates come from a belief, that the wealthy have more money to pay, while the poor and middle class will have a much harder time giving up that income. There is also an argument to be made to suggest that more tax dollars are spent on the wealthy than other groups. And it can also be argued that Canadian resources (land, gold, oil, potash) are mostly used by the wealthy, and since those resources belong to all Canadians, all Canadians should get a share of that. But beyond these arguments, anecdotes are more effective. It simply doesn't make sense to anyone with compassion that a poor family should struggle to pay for basic expenses, while someone else can spend $2 million on a car, or $450 million on a painting.
  2. I read the case, and I think the ruling is fair. 90 days and losing her license for 10 years seems about right. I don't think she's a bad person. Just a little foolish, and lacking good judgement. Still, it's a shame that we deem it irresponsible to do anything other than run over small animals on the road. Makes me ashamed to be human.
  3. I think it's a political landmine, and anyone voting in favour of it, will have that vote used against them for as long as they remain in politics.
  4. It sounds like you're another one who is perfectly willing to accept Muslim immigrants, as long as they abandon everything about their culture and identity.
  5. On the surface, this looks like an absurd question. But war and terrorism can force people (and governments) into making very hard choices. For most of us in Canada, we've never really known wars, so the idea of making such choices seems preposterous. However, even if there were Muslim based terrorism, it shouldn't change the way we treat Muslim Canadians. If there was a situation where we were at war with a certain country (let's say Syria), then we might have a difficult conversation about dual-citizens and possibly even citizens originally from Syria. The only scenario where internment camps would be even discussed would be if there was a large number of terrorist attacks in Canada from home-grown terrorists, such that the government was unable to tell who could be a risk, and who couldn't. But even in that scenario, an internment camp would make so many more enemies, and in the long run, would likely make us less safe, as I guarantee that the acutal terrorists would use that as proof that infidels are the enemy of the Muslim people. So, after a deeper look, still an absurd question.
  6. Ok, there was a crazy Muslim woman. Sometimes there are crazy Christians or crazy atheists. We hardly need to change our way of life because of one crazy person with a knife. In the last 100 years, the 'Muslim epidemic' has killed exactly two people, which should put it on the same danger level as pink eye. Instead, so many Canadians have a singular focus on this alleged Muslim threat. Here is a list of things that have proven to be far more deadly than Muslims: - bathtubs - falling out of bed - hitting moose on the highway - lawn mowers - kids being forgotten in hot cars - hockey So, if we're that comfortable restricting human rights to protect 'real Canadians' let's start banning those things too. - No more bathtubs - just showers. - No beds more than one foot off the ground - Interment camps for Moose - Only manual lawn mowers - No windows allowed in cars - Ban hockey and football And while we're at it, let's restrict cars from going more than 20 km/h since that seems to kill about 1000x more people than Muslims. Now then, in terms of accommodation, I don't think a special pool time is that big of a deal. It's not like the pool has public swim all the time. It's blocked off for all sorts of things. Private lessons, swim lanes, seniors waterworkout, childrens swim etc. And as for the schools, you need to realize that Christians get Sunday off. Jews get Saturday off but Muslims do not get Friday off. So, the fact that there is a room set aside for an hour on their holiday, doesn't seem like we're favouring Muslims all that much. How about we change it so schools get Friday and Saturday off, and then refuse to give any prayer time to Christians on Sunday. See how fair everyone thinks that arrangement is. It sounds to me like you don't want to make any compromises because you don't want them here. So, the only Muslims you want are the ones who completely abandon all their beliefs and culture and act just like your nice third-generation Polak neighbour. Look, I understand that you don't want to lose your culture or your way of life. Either do they do. Obviously, they have to compromise more than we do, because they are the ones coming to this country, but as long as they don't demand that we change our way of life to accomodate their way of life, I think it will work out fine. And as for the 'Muslim horde', that you seem to be afraid of, you need to realize that people that come from unfortunate circumstances get messed up. The longer they stay in Canada, and the more they adjust to our way of life, the less of a connection they feel to the extremism. I think there is some danger coming from people from those countries, but it is largely dissipated by the kindness and generosity that many Canadians show them. And the second generation, is almost fully absorbed into Canadian society. The danger is if we fail to assimilate new Canadians, allowing them to have their own neighbourhoods, mosques and schools, where they don't get to know their non-Muslim neighbours, particularly if they pay too much attention to those Canadians who make it clear they don't like Muslims.
  7. Ever since Weinstein's dirty secrets were unearthed, male celebrities are getting abolished in the press at an astronomical rate. - Harvey Weinstein - Dustin Hoffman - George Takei - Kevin Spacey - Louis CK - Jeremy Piven - Richard Dreyfus - Brett Ratner (X-Men director) And a massive amount of producers/directors. In some cases, they're being accused of rape, in other cases sexual assault, and in other cases, sexual harassment. So, what does it all mean? What are the ramifications. On the plus side, this will change the way that Hollywood operates. The casting couch should be a thing of the past. Talent may actually dictate who rises to the top. US acting talent may become on par with that of the UK going forward. And no one should be put in a position to have to choose between putting up with unwanted advances and their career. Also, some serial predators will likely end up in jail, or at least removed from any position of power. In terms of potential negatives, The news cycle is so hungry to see this saga continue, that we're lumping in relatively harmless incidents with serial predators. Asking a woman out on a date multiple times, slapping someone on the ass, misreading the signs and trying to kiss someone spontaneously, are all being treated like serious crimes, because the new powers-that-be are so keen to distance themselves from any taint of sexual predators, that they are instantly believing every accusation, and treating all perpetrators like serial rapists, regardless of the frequency or extent of the incident.
  8. Well Michael, I think the Rebel has a few problems, but given the topic of the thread, that is what I addressed. As a general rule, if I indicate a problem with someone or something, I am not implying that this is the worst/only thing wrong. The paywall is because advertisers are dropping them as fast as they can, and they need a way to generate money. I hardly think it's Nazi propaganda, nor do I think that the Rebel is anti-semitic. Ezra Levant is an ardent supporter of Israel, and Gavin no longer works there. Now, if you want to accuse him of being Islamaphobic, I can't argue that. And you're probably right, that no one cares that a Toronto magazine chose to fat-shame the mayor and publicly humiliate him. And that's part of the problem. But again, I never said this was just as bad. It was an example of left-wing hypocrisy. Perhaps you could consider dropping the histrionics and false extrapolations from your debating repertoire.
  9. I don't understand. What does this have to to with the US being evil? Seriously though, you should know by now that the UN is morally corrupt and irrelevant. Unless Iran or Iraq do something to violate a UN resolution, and then every word the UN says is critically important.
  10. Soldiers don't really have a sense of what they are signing up for. The chance of dying isn't that much greater than many other occupations in Canada - ie heli logging etc. The difference is that they're likely to be traumatized through seeing their friends killed or maimed, as well as being in a state of constant danger. Compare that to the people getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions because someone kissed them without asking or groped them. Or made some inappropriate jokes around the office. I'm not saying any of those things are right, but the claims for compensation for PTSD around the workplace should be compared to what soldiers go through, before we decide how to dole out the money, espeically when the deep-pocketed governments are the ones paying the bill because one of three million employees acted inappropropriately.
  11. In case, you haven't heard, Roy died in a plane crash today. He was flying the small plane himself in the Gulf of Mexico, after recently getting his pilot's license. He was always a class act, and deserved a better retirement than this. Very sad.
  12. So, let's see if I follow: Some Christians did some bad things 400+ years ago. Therefore, we should hold them all accountable today. And we don't care that 27 Christians were shot up in a church, because there were more non-whites killed by Christians hundreds of years ago. And if we don't see why that's more important, than we must be racists. Does that about sum it up?
  13. The assumption that Christians are to blame, that has become so prevalent, is part of the reason so many people died in Texas. Villiainizing and ridiculing the religious has become so common place, that some will no doubt laud the actions of the shooter. Perhaps if we quit making it 'open season' on Christians in the media, tragedies like this wouldn't happen.
  14. I think there's a growing number of Canadians that don't actually have trouble paying high taxes, they just have trouble paying high taxes for the bullshit that the government spends money on - union employees being the #1 cost. But to Argus' point about what government should spend money on, that's an interesting debate. Political leaders are not only chosen for their ability to listen to the people and put democratic voices into reality, but also for their vision of what the city/province/nation should become. Sometimes politicians have to lead, even though their is no immediate public appetite for those things, as demonstrated by the free market. The most obvious example is when the government banned smoking in bars. The businesses were outraged. The libertarians suggested that if such a thing was wanted, the free market would have already established it. Looking back now, does anyone think the government made a mistake when they banned smoking from bars and restaurants? Even the smokers seem to reluctantly agree that it was the right thing to do. But aside from a couple of exceptions, I do understand the frustration of politicians spending our money to reflect their values, and the values of the culturally elite.
  15. Which is more racist? Acknowledging the reserve system is broken and proposing alternatives? Pretending nothing is wrong and keep applying band-aid solutions, allowing FN to wallow in slums all across the country? Unfortunately, our PM is far more interested in virtue-signalling than any real change.
  16. While I think Rebel Media has a place in Canadian news, they also need to realize that taking cheap, often personal shots at politicians and others will cause them to be treated poorly by those same people. You can't talk shit about people on the internet, and then expect to shake hands and share a joke, when you meet then in person. In the case of Mckenna, she may have made some mistakes (which she should be held accountable for), but she is very well qualified, and deserves the position she was awarded. Furthermore, referring to her as Climate Barbie is sexist, and shouldn't be a term used by any serious news source. And to be fair, the left wing is just as guilty. The shots that took at Rob Ford and continue to take at Donald Trump are just as egregious. We need to stop taking cheap shots at right wing politicians and then cry foul when the right wing does the same. Remember when Now posted a naked picture of Rob Ford on its cover? Imagine if that was done to Andrea Horvath.
  17. Bernie and Trump were right to ask Clinton about these transactions during the election contests. What I found fascinating was the utter contempt and dismissiveness Hillary showed for those who dared to question her. At one point, she actually said that no one could prove that she changed her vote based on money she received, as if that were evidence enough of her innocence. As secretary of state, while negotiating with foreign entities, her husband received hundreds of thousands for speeches from those same foreign entities, and their charity received tens of millions from those entities. This is an incredible conflict of interest, and rather than address the perception head-on, Hillary was incredulous about even being asked, and tried to play the 'female victim' card. It's not a coincidence that donations to the Clinton foundation are waning, along with the Clinton family's political influence. That should tell you all you need to know about the perceived conflict of interest.
  18. A higher minimum wage combined with a large influx of new Canadians, ensures us that we'll see rising unemployment rates and massive amounts of tax dollars doled out to support these new Canadians. Part of the issue is that governments are judged largely on their ability to increase the GDP. For some reason I don't understand, economists tell us we must be ever-increasing the GDP. We aren't allowed to stand still and enjoy the relative prosperity. Instead, our nation must consume more and more, to show that we're progressing environment, shmironment. To preserve the few traditions and bit of culture that we're still allowed to celebrate, we should be looking at ways to boost the number of children born to Canadian families. I know so many people that can't afford to have children, or limit themselves to one or two due to the costs. Maybe some tax breaks along those lines would help us boost our population without further watering down our culture.
  19. Ok, that's not really how oxymorons work. You can't just put two words together and call it an oxymoron. Generally, the first word has to modify the second word. Also, if you're going to throw words like moron around, let's at least run the sentence through spell check first. Come on man. You can't make it this easy for the left to rebut.
  20. Quite possibly. But, let's have an honest conversation about it, instead of pretending it's because we're concerned about the oppressed niqab-wearing women. There is something to be said for trying to attract immigrants who more closely share our values. I don't particularly want a Canada where I can't walk my dog in public because some groups find them unclean, for instance. Or a culture where we can't celebrate anything, because we would be excluding people. I say let them all in, but stop bending over backwards for them. This is our country, these our values, customs and traditions. If that appeals to you, come on over. If that doesn't, there's plenty of other countries to choose from.
  21. What laws do you think we'r What laws do you think we are changing to accomodate the niqab? I don't have a problem with not allowing it at citizenship, or other places where photo ID is required. But banning it altogether would require us to change our laws to do the opposite of accommodating them. We can't be sure that the women are not oppressed, so just restrict their religious freedoms to play it safe, because we're going to assume that their husband is abusive? Everyone wants a country that gets along. I'm not sure how you think banning Muslims is going to make that happen? Do you think that will make the Muslims that are already here happy and united? Or do you want to throw them out too?
  22. 1) When you say it is 'our' country. Who does 'our' refer to? White people? Christians? Non-immigrants. People born in Canada? 2) What is it you think you are forced to do, if we don't ban the niqab. 3) So you feel that grown women shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds on this? 4) You think that Canada is the only country in the world that allows the niqab? Also, you seem very concerned about oppressed Muslim women. I am sure you would therefore like to open up our borders and admit many more of them.
  23. Pretty interesting story from Politico here. In her book, Brazile tells how Hillary secured the loyalty (and oversight) of the DNC long before she won the nomination. Looks like Bernie never had a fair chance after all. This should spell the end of the Clinton dynasty, and will hopefully cause a major house cleaning at the DNC as well. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
  24. The people that are most vociferous in their want to ban the niqab, aren't doing so because of concerns of voter fraud, or because they want to help women get out of oppressive relationships. They are doing so, because they hope by banning them, devout Muslims will stay out of Canada. There's a compromise to be made, where women remove them at voting offices, citizenship ceremonies etc, but accommodations can be made so that they don't show their face during those times. But to ban them completely, is a violation of freedom. These are grown women, and they should be able to make up their own minds, as opposed to having Canadians dictate what they should and shouldn't be allowed to believe.
  25. No need. How about you just read the sentence below that, where he says: I am not sure where you get your history from but if you can find one ELECTED Arab leader or Palestinian leader who has ever offered Israel recognition as a Jewish state please share. It seems to me that quite a few Arab leaders have accepted the state of Israel. Now, find me a Jewish leader who accepts the state of Palestine - and actually means it. Maybe Rabin, who was killed by Arab terrorists. Oh wait.... And if a nuclear physicist says the Koran is a bad book, that's good enough for me. Actually, I'll concede that the Koran is worse than other major religious texts. But again, it's really in the interpretation of those texts. And I don't deny that Islam is a dangerous religion. My point was that Islamaphobia is real, and some Muslims are treated unfairly because of the actions of other Muslims. Similarly, some blacks are treated poorly because of the actions of other blacks. That doesn't make racism less real.
×
×
  • Create New...