Leafless

What criteria would you set up for removal of Canadian citizenship ? I'm pretty sure that the high and mighty in Canada would lobby heavily against your idea, and they're the ones with the real power. Criteria? Simple- In the case of Lebanese or any other Canadian with dual citizenship ' You have six months to consider and choose the country you wish to live in. If you choose a country other than Canada, you will no longer be a citizen of Canada and you will be forced to leave'.

Canada is a small country. The scandal is allowing, as in this particular case, dual citizenship Canadians to live in another country for years and then in the event of a conflict SCREAM Canadian status to save their hide. The other aspect which is a drain on Canadian financial resources is dual citizenship Canadians enjoying the comforts of another country only return to Canada at retirement age for old age pension and or medical attention. What I am saying is I am advocating the removal of the luxury of dual citizenship and allowing only a single Canadian citizenship applicable only naturally in Canada living in this country as a tax paying Canadian. Take Canada, or leave Canada, is the way it should be if our inept politicians are listening and also to the thousands of voices that are saying the same thing.

Stephen Harper has no control concerning the wholesale demolition of Lebanon as a "measured response". Stephen Harper cannot assume responsibility that once violence starts "escalation is inevitable". Mr. Harper as indicated he supports Israel in defending itself. It is Israel that is trying to make Hezbollah inoperable in Lebanon in order to save their own country. Your questions should be directed to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

gerryhatrick The 2001 census numbers you quoted (143,635) as being of Lebanese origin is correct. The numbers I gave you from the same source (93,895) were single response Lebanese, identifying themselves as Lebanese ONLY, which I think is a more accurate and a more appropriate number when accounting for dual citizenship as 'Lebanese' ( the other legal citizenship) would be the most probable response when applying in Canada for Canadian citizenship, in the case of dual Lebanon/Canadian citizenship. The numbers you quoted is a combination of identification responses the contain both singular (93,895)and multiple responses (49,740) = 143,635 plus making reference to a briefing book from the 2002 Francophonie Summit pushed unofficial numbers boosting the total to 250,000. Stats.Can numbers are a cause for confusion and they should incorporate a more simplistic and accurate method to detirmine different nationalities. It would be interesting to see how many of the 250,000 (if indeed accurate) hold dual citizenship. The story you posted " Why 40,000 Canadians are in Lebanon" will probably reworked several more times trying to make it sound more reasonable each time to justify the huge number of Lebanese Canadains in Lebanon. Either way this in my book is a major immigration SCANDAL and is something that should require immediate federal attention.

Well, you must consider it ludicrous that out of the total population according to Stats.Can. that identified themselves (single response) as Lebanese which is 93,895 and 40,000 of them are on vacation in Lebanon. That's close to an estimated 50% of all Lebanese in Canada are on vacation in Lebanon. Now you must consider the fact that airfare and hotels is about the same for a vacation to England. But to most people this is a once in a lifetime vacation due to the HIGH COST. But if you put this in perspective and consider 1-million Canadians identified themselves as French (in comparison) up to approx. 500,000 would be on vacation in France. Sounds pretty ridiculous, don't you think. So obviously there must be a lot of truth that a lot of Lebanese are 'Canadians by convenience' ( or either filthy rich) although Canada keeps no official stats concerning this aspect but I suspect Canada just might be doing that soon, hopefully anyways.

Why are you stating Ottawa-Gatineau is a city (in the singular sense) when you know very well Gatineau is in the province of Quebec and Ottawa is in the province of Ontario. They are part of National Capital Region in a (federal sense) and associated with the workings of the N.C.C (National Capital Commission) whose main function is maintaining and beautifying federal assets between the two provinces separated by the Ottawa River. I resent and am offended that my city Ottawa being referred to by you as part of a city in Quebec that harbours a population of around 50 % the wishes to separate from Canada. Ottawa, Ontario is a municipality like any other municipality, a city totally separated from Gatineau a city in the province of Quebec.

Presence for WHAT so Canadian troops in the meantime will be available as target practice and used as sacrificial lambs by murdering suicide bombers?

Then how is it that people are prosectured for Hate Crimes? Why dont you get a Legal Definition rather than a dictionary reference? Of course the definition says its a theory, its an intangible action or prejudice - But I must say, tell that to a victim of racism and hatred - no one can be that dumb, you are arguing semantics and it serves no point does it? I am not arguing semantics. Don't blame me if you don't know what the difference is between racism and racial discrimination concerning hate crimes.

When you came back and replied " racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" was a contradiction to the dictionary definition of racism as being a theory which I had posted initially. This I considered 'antagonistic' and replied " You just don't get it, do you?" in ( your correct ) an antagonistic way. In this instance I would call it an 'eye for an eye' and requires NO apologies, not on MY part anyways.

Racism isn't a theory when it manifests itself in hatred. You just don't get it, do you? The word racism does not really ( or even exist if it didn't characterize a believe) apply unless you believe in the meaning according to your personal belief. When you say "racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" is simply your belief or OPINION, it is not fact. So you are wrong to be critical or chastisize those who disagree with your belief.

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory. Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

Chinese manufacturers are presently a 'copy and paste' manufacturing nation lacking essential skills to produce quality manufactured articles. The U.S. is still the world's TOP manufacturing country. And guess what? You actually have Chinese manufacturing companies moving to the U.S. in the pursuit of quality skills and parts and to reduce shipping cost. It's far from being over, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2006...acturing_myths/ http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail....&d_str=20060116

August1991 a question and a little off topic. Why do you make reference to (English) Canada when there is NO officially English Canada nor official French Canada. All citizen's in Canada are Canadian no matter what language they speak. The majority language in Canada is certainly English with the official languages being English and French. But Canada is a single country. Explanation please.

"How should Canada deal with "The States" is nonsensical because Canada can't deal with the "States" in a way to unfairly make them bend without repercussions of one sort or another. Canada is fortunate to have a trade deal with the U.S. period. I have seen posts like this before on this site and elsewhere disintegrate into anti-Americanism and is basically inviting anti-Americanism. My reply to the author of this post did not include substance relating to the question asked but suggested caution concerning the question asked as Mr. Harper is in the process of returning Canada-U.S relations back to normal. And I would suggest Mr. Harper is NOT using any particular style as you suggest but is a PM that is finally acting in a normal manner towards our friend and ally the U.S. BTW, You can be antagonistic without saying anything personal about someone. In this case you were critical or opposed my personal response in which I used the word "nonsensical" which was not related to you or subject matter but simply part of my personal response against a post of this type. That is definition of antagonism.

As I gaze into my political crystal ball Canada seems to have evaporated from the face of North America. In it's place many stars and stripes flags are now flying and according to hazy historical facts I'am reading in this crystal ball, once proud Canada had been fully absorbed by the U.S. a country no longer able to function. Failure was due primarily by loss of federal control relating to unity, was unable to cope with the tremendous burden of to many social programs and was unable to cope with globalization crippling the country and resulting in mass unemployment. Although according to the information I have here all this all happened years ago in the year 2013 a few years after the liberals were voted back in with a majority.

Is this your answer to the post? Or are you trying to be antagonistic like you are with Argus? Stephen Harper has went to a lot of trouble to correct feelings of anti-Americanism initiated by the previous Liberal government. It is nonsensical to think someone would generate a post at this time to possibly reignite feelings of anti-Americanism with a country that is Canada's friend, neighbor and lifeblood.

You've been telling every one on this board not to vote for Harper if he doesn't hold the key to many important issue's in this country and advocating voting for someone else even though they are not advocating any action on many important issue's Canadians are faced with. So essentially your advocating voting as deaf, dumb and blind as politicians suggest discounting the existence of major problems. But now since your dumbfounded and our asking me I will tell you. Firstly you must make politicians fully aware that many Canadians are not satisfied with their leadership in certain areas. Protest are a start. For instance have you ever seen a mass protest on parliament hill concerning our immigration policies and or our discriminating official bilingualism in the federal service? I haven't. I mean how did Quebec go about getting themselves a multitude of policies that serves Quebec over the ROC?

This is a really nonsensical question. Actually we are related by blood more to the U.S. than we are Quebec and even (freely) share the U.S. culture and language. The U.S has provided Canada the tools to be a modern vibrant society by sharing it's vast multitude of resources with us and by allowing us to be one of it's major trading partners. If you are dissatisfied with the U.S. maybe we should break off all relations with the U.S., remove all U.S. investment in Canada and seek out with other parts of the world to seek whatever relations you consider would be more superior or where Canada would fully call the shots according to your intellect or requirements.

I could not make heads of tails of your previous post about corrupt government because you said there was no legal way to deal with it. ? Elections are not a way to deal with it? Who is being illogical here? And who isn't offering alternative legal suggestions? As for insults flying around, I'm taking responsibility for my part. I'm just confused by your post as to what legal and responsible means there are to provide a system that reflects your values. Now you are being a hypocrite. Normally elections are a legal way to deal with political issues. But if all major national federal parties are dealing basically or accepting the former Liberal legacy as raising no major objections to it then there is a problem. Many Canadians already know there are major political issues not being dealt by any of the major federal parties. So voting just for the sake of voting is your solution!! If you call this a legal and responsible system that reflect your values then you are part of the problem.

I agree, this is starting to get pretty sickening, he's starting to make Stockwell Day look good!

Why use his private jet? This could set up a level of favouritism or that some are receiving preferential treatment. But the question to ask is why are 50,000 Canadians being evacuated when the U.S. a much larger country has 25,000 U.S. citizens in Lebanon but is evacuating only 2,000. Are all 50,000 Canadians in extreme danger and what is Canada's obligation to remove such a large number if they are not directly affected in the area their in? There are reports that 5,000 Canadians are permanent residents of Lebanon and rumours many returning at age 65 in time to collect old age benefits and have medical conditions attended to.

I give that advice because of the endless complaining by some people who won't change their vote from the party they think is going to change things but doesn't. And are you suggesting you are about to go on an armed conflict with the government because it is corrupt? I am not suggesting anything. I am asking what you would suggest rather than repeat your senseless parrot type responses regarding not voting for Stephen Harper? To keep repeating yourself illogically you know there is a problem and that problem cannot be resolved by conventional politics. All I am saying is if you cannot offer alternative solutions please stop posting your repetitious illogical nonsense as you could then be considered the master and instigator of your own fate concerning insults directed at you.

It seems you have the power to remedy your problems through your vote but the party that you vote for doesn't do what you want. Do you live in hope that Harper is going to change the immigration policy to zero immigrants? You gave me the same advice and suggested I run myself. I think you have must have some idea recognizing there is no legal way a country can deal with corrupt politicians and policies. So why are you continually dispensing the same illogical advice when you must KNOW what you are saying simply will not achieve anything. What does any other country do when they are not satisfied being ruled by a corrupt dictatorship?

But that's what the problem is INSULTS to Canadianism. There is a major problem in Canada and is not being addressed by no party who are a major part of the problem themselves.

They have many things that the ROC doesn't have: Examples: a common language, a common culture, a common religion, a history, a sense of 'outsiders' that are perceived to interfere with their affairs, and a land that they've settled and developed all their own. On this last point, people might move from BC to Ontario to Alberta and still be in 'Canada', but there is only one Quebec if you get my meaning. No, I don't get your meaning and Quebecer's did not develop Quebec's subculture on their own, which they owe Canada, and they do have immigration of different cultures. Canada does have 'official common' languages all immigrants are supposed to know. What do subcultures personal preferences including religion have to do with nationlististic feelings and patrotic responses to the country they live and exist in? Canada does have a history and a majority culture. What your saying is SOME Canadians feel the don't have to be LOYAL, DEDICATED or PATRIOTIC to Canada because they simply feel they don't have to be. If you want to live in some HIPPIE COMMUNE I don't and if this what the federal government is preaching let them say it LOUD AND CLEAR preferably in ENGLISH the majority official language.