betsy

Er....I must've missed them....did you give any cite to support your statements?

Why are you raising the xenophobe card? How do you expect them to find employment if they cannot speak the language of this country? yep. That's the point everyone's trying to point out to you! That's why we should welcome young immigrants who are skilled and who can easily get employment! Otherwise, they'll just be like our aging population....in need of assistance! I don't know what's wrong with people from China, India, Philippines etc.., most of whom can speak English, a lot of whom had found their niche in our society. Some in science, high-tech, nannies, nursing, etc.., Guess what, most of these immigrants send money to their parents. That's how it works in their culture. A lot of immigrants also want to live out their old age in their native homeland...and you know why? There's a whole lot of extended families back home who can provide support and care to an elderly. Of course you know too that the dollars being sent back to the native homeland help the economy of that poor country! A lot of them still came here! To most of them, it's a matter of necessity. Being able to send money home is far more practical for them. Don't kid yourself. They like that their dollars are multiplied several times in their native homeland. Their pension money when they get old can make them live like rich people back home. Actually that could be the answer to our shortage of retirement homes/home care. Any Canadian citizen who wants to retire or live out their old age in those countries should be encouraged. Our healthcare should cover their healthcare bills since they're much more cheaper compared to here. I don't think anyone here is arguing about that. I have no problem with that, as long as these couples are skilled, can speak one of the two official languages of this country so they can easily find employment! Uh-uh. First, you're not sure what will become of the children. We're already taking a chance bringing in the two children, hoping they can grow up being productive citizens of this country. If they don't, we're obligated to care for them. Second, who knows what kind of healthcare the grandparent will require, and for how long? Besides, I'd rather the children go to a regular daycare or babysitter.....it will help generate more jobs/source of income. You want to have it both ways at the expense of the taxpayers! I don't think that's fair.

As you get older, you require more healthcare. And that's if you're lucky to be healthy enough not to require home care...or nursing care. That's a fact!

How is he hanging himself? I'd like you to please explain what you mean....because I fail to see it myself.

It's not belittling their contribution to their own family. It's being realistic. Otherwise, we're all going to sink...and these immigrants who uprooted themselves from their homeland expecting the dreams every aspiring immigrant only dream about will only end up sinking down with us. The leaking ship can only take so much to make it to shore.

Boy, they're talking EXODUS! Liberals/NDP supporters, will you just stop and do a reality check here. As it is, we're already deeply concerned about the great numbers of citizens who'll become seniors in a few years, all collecting pensions, needing healthcare/homecare/nursing care. I thought one of the reasons why we're trying to get young immigrants over here is to make up for the diminishing numbers of productive young citizens who'll shoulder the expenses of looking after all these older folks? I know of a minority who came to Canada with her husband and three children. The husband sponsored his aged mother and she came to Canada. She did not work outside the house. Her role was to cook for this family and do their housekeeping. Their housing was subsidized. Not long after, this mother started collecting pension and sponsored her other adult son to come to Canada. I don't know what happened after that since we lost contact. But it's like playing tag. It's scary enough shouldering this burgeoning price tag, what more with all the other huge spendings these two parties are going to make. You can pretend that everything is costed out and hang on their promise that they won't be raising any taxes. But whom are you kidding? Somebody will end up paying for this and you bet it won't be coming out of the pockets of Ignatieff and Layton. Just do the math! I know most of you hate Harper and the Conservatives! Some even go to the extent of declaring, "Anyone but Harper!" You have to set aside partisanship and really take a closer look. Don't bite your nose just to spite your face.

I'm not sure if I heard Ignatieff and Layton right, regarding the changes they want to make on Immigration, re: re-unification. From what I understood, both want to make it easy and fast for extended families like grandparents to come to Canada. Am I right?

How can you? You've got your blinders on, remember?

There is already a response to your argument. In numerous thread. Please refer to them.

Are you reading or not? Who said anything about censoring??? MANDATORY! So you wouldn't miss that. That's my issue! PARENTAL RIGHTS! (don't miss this one too) They have the right to teach their children their own values/religion! When the child reaches age of maturity....then that's when you guys can have a go at them, and try to confuse them with your batshit crazy moral relativism! Is this some sort of..."nyeh-nyeh-nyeh I-can't-hear-you" and the "nyeh-nyeh-nyeh I-didn't-read-that" rebutt? Okaaaay. Keep your blinders and earmuffs on.

As is well-known, Dawkins refused to have any debates with William Lane Craig. The two had a chance meeting prior to their "square-off." http://apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-vs-richard-dawkins.html Unfortunatley, it wasn't a one-on-one. It's three-on-three. Safer in numbers, I suppose....

But this is my argument! You guys don't want me to use these people as evidence because their sudden recanting of atheism after comparison of ID and Random Chance speaks for itself. Action speaks louder than words. What "actual" arguments? TalkOrigin rebuttals? Adhominem? Hypocritical accusations of "quote-mining?" Personal opinions? Ramblings and rantings? Circular arguments? Setting parameters? Ha-ha-ha These smart people are not the type to just be content on reading popular science or consulting with TalkOrigin, nor are they the type to be gullible to accept what is presented to them without much scrutiny and understanding. They have their own individual reputations to uphold! They don't hide behind anonymous identities like posters in online forums! They've placed their credentials/qualifications/reputations on the line when they did swallow their own words and recanted! Action speaks louder than words. You cannot possibly ignore that glaring fact! Unless of course, just like you putting a parameter as to how far you should go in your search for the so-called truth.... you also want to put a limit as to how far we can reason in our discussion.

Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights? Although I wish they would....but I don't think so. The Conservatives know that it'll be disastrous for them if they try. Anyway, Pro-Lifers should concentrate more in bringing their fight to the UN....the right of the unborn child.

Ignatieff thinks he's in the classroom everytime he opens his mouth! Who wants to be lectured or.....given a tutorial? So talk about boring.... That body-language posturing with his two parallleled hands going from one side to the other also gets on the nerve. It's almost like he's going to do the feet shuffle....or one of those 70's disco dance!

[quote name='August1991' date='21 April 2011 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1303449025' Does this I am surprised that Harper gave the interview. In 1972, 1974 and 1980, Trudeau refused to participate in a debate. Harper should have done the same. Imagine the field day the anti-Harper media will have if Harper refused this interview! On the last week of the campaign too! Whether it changed any decisions or not....Harper did the right thing. As for it being a waste of time, I don't think it is. For one, it showed the contrast between him and Ignatieff, and since the media's anticipating this interview...Harper gets his message across in what ended up as a nation-wide campaign stop! The message was delivered loud and clear. Especially his parting shot! Not bad, I say when he used the Liberal's own propaganda machine (CBC)!

Yep. The way he kept asking Harper about why the necessity of having a majority when Harper had been "bragging" about his minority's accomplishment only made Mansbridge sound so ignorant (?) - can't think of a better word right now - about the goings-on in the House - which everyone's been complaining was accomplishning nothing other than senseless partisan bickering (and why we're having another election).....or he's desperately trying to find something to give the Opposition something to clobber Harper with (after Ignatieff unexpectedly hit his own head with a hammer)! Harper managed to wrest control of the interview from Mansbridge (and got the interview going in the direction he wanted it to go)....and Mansbridge knew he lost control! You could see it in Mansbridge's face!

No wonder Diuceppe was short-tempered this morning when he was being questioned about Jack.

This must be some sort of vindication for Dion. Remember how he got rudely ushered out of leadership two years ago, he became the butt of jokes, and everyone couldn't wait to get Iggy on his seat.

I'd like to see Jack become the official opposition. Not only does he seem to be a nice guy....but I also felt sorry for him when Iggy belittled him during the debate saying "You never had power. You'd always be in opposition."

Harper actually managed to get control of the interview. Whereas Ignatieff got easily pushed! Big difference between the two. Mansbridge tried his darndest to assert his questions, trying to pin Harper down....Harper not only managed to engage, but most importantly came away explaining his message loud and clear!

The hypothetical scenario: Election's over. The dust has settled. We wake up to a new government run by a coalition of Liberals, NDP and the Bloc, led by Ignatieff. What happens next? By supporting the coalition, what did the Liberals get out of it? By supporting the coalition, what did the NDP get out of it? Most importantly.... By supporting the coalition, what did Seperatist Bloc Quebecois get out of it? Surely, the three....especially Bloc Quebecois did not help prop up the coalition by just the simple gain of removing Harper from power, after all they all propped up Harper's minority government at some point in the past. So what do you think were negotiated? How was the pie divided? What do we - the common people - get out of this? Let's be realistic in our speculation.

If lowering the Corporate Tax is so bad for the economy, then how come Ontario Liberal Mcguinty supports it in Ontario? http://www.yourvote2011.ca/?p=1477 The Provincial NDP are saying the same thing as their big brothers. But Provincial Liberals definitely do not agree with Ignatieff's policy.

The Liberals are desperately trying to change the channel right after Ignatieff's big boo-boo interview with Mansbridge. With that latest dug-up dirt in their desperate scramble to take the spotlight away from the word COALITION, the biggest question is: WHAT'S THE COMPLAINT IN THE LETTER ABOUT? As far as I know, nobody knows yet. If the complaints were serious in nature, what was the response by the Ethics Commissioner? Why do we hear about that only now? Anyway, perhaps this Giorno-complaint was nothing more than a feud with Carson. There seemed to have been some kind of rivalry between the two, what more with their history in Queen's, according to my sourced article from McLean's.

You and Ignatieff can speculate to your hearts' content. That's the good thing about democracy. But lest ye forget, democracy in our society also dictates: Carson is deemed innocent until proven guilty. No kangaroo courts are recognized in a democracy. Unless it's the same shade of "democracy" places like Zimbabwe, Iran or Libya etc., adheres to.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/28/the-carson-show-2/