Jariax

Rue. This is why I don't like to talk Israel/Palestine politics. I debate the same tired points over and over. 1) I'm sure you're right. No democratically elected Arab leader has ever agreed to recognize the Jewish state of Israel. Once you add in the caveats of a democratically elected leader, and then make the additional criteria that they can't just recognize Israel, but must recognize it as a Jewish state, well then I guess you win. Congratulations. 2) Every major religious text has a whole lot of bad shit in it. If you pick and choose the bad parts out of the Koran, I'm sure you'll win even more internet battles. But it's intellectually dishonest. Do Jews kill people who work on the Sabbath? Probably not often. Because they don't take their holy texts literally all of the time. 3)I'm not sure why you added three paragraphs about Islamaphobia not existing. Who cares if it's a fear of Muslims or a dislike of Muslims. It's just semantics. It's the same as homophobia. Does that exist? And if you think it was invented to shut down all criticism of Islam, you should try going to a Canadian University during Israeli-apartheid week, and see who is trying to shut down free speech under the pretense of Jewphobia. Or let me guess, there's no comparison between anti-semitism (which is totally real) and Islamaphobia (which is totally made up).

The other thing about the Khadr settlement that's important, is that the settlement is based on the wrongs we did (or allowed to have done), regardless of who he is as a person. We're saying that allowing Canadian citizens to be tortured with our knowledge is wrong. While Guantanamo is obviously not as egregious as what happened to Maher Arar, the fact was that he was a teenager at the time of his imprisonment and the conditions in Guantanamo do not meet our standards for how anyone (including murderers) should be treated. I think it's important to take that stand, even though we may not like the person receiving the money. Is there anyone here who would trade places with Khadr and be sent to Guantanamo from age 15 to 24 in exchange for 10.5 million dollars. There might be some, but I think the majority would say no. Compare that to the sexual harassment settlements where people are getting millions of dollars because some guy hit on them a couple of times.

Values change from generation to generation. While I think the Khadr settlement was overly generous, it did at least happen in recent memory, and wasn't compensation for something the government did fifty years ago. We need to put a statute of limitations on these things. Fifty years from now, we may decide that not having a transgendered washroom was torturous, and have to pay out millions to everyone who attended public school during that time. We may once again, romanticize the parent/child bond and decide that all those children taken away from their parents (who were drunk/on drugs/incompetent) had a grave injustice done to them. It's neverending.

I don't think comparing the money spent on an inmate to the money spent on ODSP recipients is a fair comparison. But I do see your point. I think there should be various tiers. 1) Welfare for able-bodied people: This should be the lowest tier - with enough money given for shared accommodation, food, and some extra spending money. Additionally, any government-provided service that allows people to improve their skills etc, should be provided at no cost. It needs to be a balance between compassion/dignity vs incentive to go and find work. 2) Welfare/Disability for unproven illness. This probably won't be as popular of an opinion, but there's far too many people claiming some sort of mental illness these days. PTSD, depression etc etc, Happy to supply these people with whatever meds/counselling they require, but I see no reason why they should get much more than standard welfare - unless there's a long history. Our society has changed too much, such that anyone can make up something, and be instantly believed, because they villainize anyone who doesn't. 3) Welfare/Disability for proven illnesses. If we have a situation where the person obviously can not get a job easily - ie missing limbs, paraplegic, and other severe problems - we can take the need to provide incentive out, and just give them a decent standard of living, regardless of whose fault it is. 4) Minimum Wage: I think minimum wage should always be greater than the monetary component of any of the first three. A person who works 35 hours a week, should always get more money than someone who doesn't. And I think the $15/hour is a great step - although I do think it should differ based on the cost of living in a particular city.

You need to recognize Trudeau's pattern. Financial improprieties are fine under the Trudeau government. He'll cover for you all day long. He figures he's young and charming enough, that he can just smile smugly during QP until it blows over. But if he has a chance to virtue signal to a special interest group by throwing you under the bus, you're gone.

Saudi Arabia gets its pass, because it's multi-generational dictatorship is smart enough to line the pockets of the ruling elites around the world, thus allowing them to hunt down and kill dissenters (aka terrorists), have an appalling human rights record when it comes to women and gays, and forego the pretense of democracy. And it's a fair point that it's not just the US. Europe, Canada and others are just as complicit.

What an absurd argument. It would be like saying that all the rocket fire and dead Israelis are the result of Israel not accepting the offers made by the Palestinians.

As I said, I'm not venturing into the Israeli/Palestinian 'debate' as I don't want to take on five hundred Israeli apologists all armed with the same talking points.

It's nice that you differentiate between Muslims and their governments. It would be nice if you differentiated between individual governments, instead of lumping all Muslim governments/regimes into one pile. Generally, theocracies are not a good form of government, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or other. Putting the beliefs of one set of people over everyone else, is not fair to anyone of other faiths. Granted, Muslim theocracies seem the most punitive to infidels, but the Christians have been pretty brutal too. In terms of fairness, I'm referring to a few specific things. 1) The overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran. 2) Seizing Arab land and turning it into Israel, and the additional land parcels Israel has taken since. 3) The ongoing treatment of Palestine, mainly in terms of trade restrictions. 4) The "theft" of Arab oil, by the UK and US. 5) The support of tyrannical regimes (Saudi Arabia) by the West, to suppress their own people. I'm not going to turn this into an Israel debate, but my point is that even though some Muslim nations have been treated unfairly at times, it does not justify the disproportionate planned violence that is perpetrated by extremist Muslims.

Virtue signalling gets a bad name. If Trudeau didn't do it non-stop, the media would pay more attention to all his broken campaign promises and lack of ideas and substance. Fortunately, for the Trudeau dynasty, and for Liberals everywhere, a few shout-outs to women, first nations and gays, accompanied by young, good looks, is all you really need to lead this country now.

I think most reasonable people believe minimum wage can be set too high, although there is much disagreement on what constitutes too high. However, removing it entirely, would be a disaster for many poor people - unless there is a social safety net. The simple fact of the matter is that the textbook laws of supply and demand don't really work in a labour market, where there is a greater supply of labour than is needed, and people must find a job to survive. If finding a job is optional, then abolishing the minimum wage could work, because employers would have to offer enough of a wage, to entice people to work. The thing about corporate taxes that governments don't seem to understand, is that when we lower our taxes 'to be more competitive', nearby jurisdictions to the same thing to complete. Now instead of Canada, Mexico and the US all taking in 20% corporate tax, we're all taking in 10%, with no one getting the upper hand, in this clever little competition - except for millionaires and MNC's. That's a big part of the reason so many countries are piling up staggering deficits and nearing bankruptcy.

I'm not saying that the West has treated Muslim countries fairly. Nor do I expect peace in countries that don't allow any mechanism for change. But, the fact is, when we see groups claiming credit for violent attacks around the world, 9/10 times it's Muslims. Other individuals do massive violent attacks (Vegas), but it's not an organized attack by a group, meant to facilitate change.

No matter how many times I see this video, it still has an impact on me. And I've probably seen it 20 times. I just can't stop watching it. www.cnn.com/girlscryingover

$750 million dollars is a bargain if it ends all the other lawsuits against the government for the residential schools. Between all the various individual judgments and the court costs, the final tally would likely have been multi-billions. Unfortunately, I don't think this is where it ends.

That's certainly an optimistic way of looking at things. Unfortunately, the non-religious right's beliefs always seem to come back to lower taxes as their cure-all for everything. And I'm left wondering how many really hold those beliefs and how many just play along, because it serves their own self-interest. Do they really think that abolishing the minimum wage will help the poor? Do they really think that a decrease in corporate taxes will result in more government revenue because of all the new business? Do they really think that universal health care will make health care worse? And do they really think it's slavery? I see these people espouse these opinions. Bright people, like Paul Ryan, and I wonder if they can really think that.

'Shutting down' because there are better opportunities, isn't quite the narrative that small business owners are trying to paint, when they talk about not being able to stay in business any longer. That being said, companies can go out of business because of payroll taxes, and other various expenses. That's what we should be focusing on eliminating, not income taxes.

Fair enough. I'm not going to hunt down any statistics. And you're right that incidents of terrorism in Canada have been pretty limited. In fact, the only incident I can think of was the attack on Parliament Hill, which was almost thwarted by a Muslim. However, incidents of 'terrorism' around the world. have been disproportionately perpetrated by Muslims. Now, why Canada has been relatively immune to acts of terrorism, is unknown. Is it because of a small sample size? Is it because the terrorists haven't made Canada a top target? is it because we've been relatively successful in screening entrants to Canada? While we can quibble over details, and what events constitute terrorism and which don't, I think that most people believe that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than other religions.

Essentially, we are in competition against each other. And that includes our children. That's the reason we get our kids into private schools, and start teaching them hockey when they are three years old. Now, if a subset of breeders, decide they want perfect children, they they're essentially cheating. And if I want my children to have the same advantages as those perfect children, I'll need to do the same thing - just like athletes and steroids. Eventually, we'll have a super race of extra tall people that will dominate everything and natural births will be left for the poor people who can't afford to have a proper child. Plus the fact that our own genetic code will be wiped out, as we move towards common attributes, which is a significant danger as well. Anyways, if you haven't seen it yet, go watch Gattaca.

Pretty dubious charts. You have one chart showing the last hundred-and fifty years, and another one showing the last twenty years. And the immigration chart is all pretty even, from 1990 on, save for a small drop around 2000, when crime was relatively flat. Even if crime went down in the last twenty years, and immigration increased, it wouldn't demonstrate that there was a relationship. It could be because abortion rates increased over that time period. It could be that poverty decreased. There's lots of possibilities. Regardless, I think it is accepted that the poor are more likely to commit petty crimes, and immigrants are more likely than average to be poor when they first get here. However, the benefits that they bring with them (low-wage workers, influx of investment dollars, filling a shortage of certain skilled occupations) more than offsets that. The key to a successful immigration policy is: 1) Do not take on too many at any one time, so that the economy has time to absorb them. 2) Discourage them from living in a concentrated area of one ethnicity, so that they assimilate better, and learn English/French faster. 3) Be selective about what countries they come from. Look at historical data on crime/employment etc. 4) Strike a good balance between refugees. skilled workers and unskilled workers. 5) Make sure they like dogs of STFO.

Aside from Islamaphobia, the other reason some want to ban burkas and face coverings, is that they feel these adult women are being forced to by their husbands and/or brainwashed. We can't let the government determine who is and isn't brainwashed. They might one day claim that everyone religious is brainwashed, or vegans are brainwashed etc. And adults should be able to make their own decisions. If we want to make some compromises to protect women, maybe something like: 1) Children under 18 are forbidden from wearing the burka. (Even then, I would be uncomfortable with the government telling people how to raise their children, and deciding which religious beliefs should be respected. Remember when San Francisco wanted to ban male circumcision?) 2) Ensure that all women, get to spend some time apart from their husband in a safe-environment where women who speak their language can offer them support, and an escape if needed. All persons in Canada should have an option, and I believe there are new Canadians enter Canada in fear of their spouses.

It seems to me that if a woman consents to sex and then changes her mind, she has an obligation to at least inform the other person of that change of mind.

No one has EVER gone out of business because income taxes were too high. They are charged on profits, which means that until you pay all your expenses, COGS, employees, and all the salaries, you still don't pay any taxes. And you're only paying taxes if you have some left over after that.

What exactly is a pro-life voting record in federal government these days? Does that mean he voted to consider a study to determine if research should be done to assess collecting data on late-term abortions and/or sex-selective abortions. That's about as pro-life as one can vote these days.

Generally, they try to place minority children with parents of a similar lineage, so their culture is maintained. Because there are more first nations children removed from their parents than any other group in Canada, any qualified native parents who want a child, would go to the front of the line to adopt a native child, so there wouldn't be any situations where a native couple would adopt a child of a different race.

It's a difficult situation, filled with extremes. On the one hand, you have people that blame all Muslims, and feel that we should round them up and toss them out of the country. On the other hand, you have the naieve kool-aid drinkers who actually believe that there is absolutely no difference between letting in 25,000 young Muslim men, and 25,000 Phillipinos, and they refuse to have an honest conversation about it. The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths. However, the vast majority are fine. Do we punish all Muslims for the action of a few? If not, do we just accept an increased risk of terrorism as the result of an immigration policy that ignores Muslim terrorism around the world? I don't think there's an easy answer, but I do think we need to stop demonizing people that are interested in policy change to protect our borders. They are scared for themselves and their family, and that is a perfectly rational way to be feeling.