Mighty AC

It absolutely is a Canadian problem and has been made far, far worse under the Harper government. Check out the report and infographic that spells out the embarassing changes here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24654-immigration/?p=1085696 and here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24654-immigration/?p=1085695

This is an interesting report that shows how dramatically immigration in Canada has changed over the last 10-15 years. Definitely, worth reading. Never Home: Legislating Discrimination in Canadian Immigration finds that citizenship is becoming harder to get and easier to lose. Permanent residency for refugees, skilled workers and family members is restricted, but the migrant worker program is exploding. Enforcement, in the form of detentions, deportations and secret trials, is also on the rise. Pervasive sentiments such as “bogus refugees”, “terrorists”, and “foreigners stealing jobs” have justified the increasing exclusion and marginalization of migrants. If migrants are allowed in, it is with temporary, conditional or precarious status. Context In 2009, the Conservative government oversaw the largest immigration raid in recent Canadian history, during which Canadian Border Services Agency officers stormed farms, factories and homes to detain over 100 non-status workers in Ontario. Two years later, the federal government announced the ‘four in and four out’ rule that now bars the renewal of work permits for foreign workers who have been working in Canada for four years. As a result of this policy, an estimated 70,000 low-waged migrant workers are facing the possibility of expulsion from 2015 onwards. This is one of the largest mass deportations in Canadian history.

Kenney vs. Kenney - Sucking and blowing at the same time. It's interesting to compare what Jason Kenney has had to say about recessions now vs when he was in opposition. The Conservatives own law defines a recession as "a period of at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real Gross Domestic Product for Canada." Which, of course, is exactly what we are experiencing now. Jason Kenney has recently tried to invent a new definition by saying "a recession is typically defined as a widespread downturn and what Canada is experiencing is nothing more than a discrete sectoral downturn". However, here is what he had to say in 2001: "Mr. Speaker, the finance minister likes to blame everyone but himself for the recession that he sleepwalked the country into ... When will he fess up to the fact that Canada is in its second quarter of negative growth, that he has led the country into a recession?" Oh and this is what Mr. Kenney said about taking credit for taking credit for any economic gains: "Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to have forgotten that the very same finance minister who eschews any responsibility for this recession was quite willing to heap upon himself responsibility for periods of modest growth in the recent past, even though that was contemporaneous with growth in other jurisdictions. One cannot suck and blow at the same time.” What's worse is that this is the second recession for Harper, Kenney and the boys in blue. Poor Jay...nailed by the Cons own definition and his own big mouth.

If it wasn't for the history of cheating in New England, this whole thing would be a non-issue. However, since they do have that history and are run by a miserable A-hole that avoids the handshake after losses, I wanted Brady to go done too.

Yeah, Argus made something up, but he unintentionally highlighted a hypocrisy issue shared by both ends of the political spectrum. I asserted that some on the right skewer Islamic issues while excusing similar Christian issues. Also that some on the left excuse Islamic issues while attacking Christians for similar issues. Which part are you disagreeing with?

And thank you as well.

According to Citibank, the world will need massive investment in new energy sources by 2040. Meeting energy demands with our business as usual mix of Coal, Gas, Nukes and renewables will cost about $190.2 trillion. The cost of meeting demand with a pure clean energy strategy would cost essentially the same at about $192 trillion. However, the clean energy solution could save as much as $72 trillion in economic damage. The clean energy approach would have some winners and losers. Our health and the environment would benefit and associated costs reduced. The costs of disaster relief and destabilization would also decrease. However, the owners of fossil fuel assets would lose. Investing in clean energy would cost only marginally more than ‘business as usual’ Citibank says

Many of the words are plainly evil, it's not an interpretation issue. What we call extremists are often just people who are truer to the words, as intended. Faith, is not a virtue it's a serious problem. Indoctrinating the idea that belief without evidence is somehow commendable is the root of the problem. The need to cherry pick or make the scripture seem more ethical and relevant than it is, only arises when belief already exists. People would not engage in exercises to make their underlying scripture seem less morally repugnant, if they were not made to believe in the first place. Well, those that have read the Bible anyway. Most Christians haven't, which makes the 'good book' myth possible. In short, my point in this thread is that the books are not good, all on their own. It does not take evil interpreters to corrupt the meaning, it actually takes invested accomplices to edit into something positive. This fact is easy to see, if one has not already been made to believe. However, once faith has been indoctrinated critical examination is difficult. It's much like listening to kids who twist together convoluted hypotheses to explain away obvious plot holes in the Santa story. That was the point of making the Bible passage in the OP seem like it was from Quran. I hoped that for a second or two readers would see the passage for what it is; excuse free.

No...though I have only been skimming the thread. Argus, thought that introducing the idea that the driver was Muslim would cause more liberals to soften their stance. I expect that if that Muslim angle was presented from the beginning, more lefties would excuse his behaviour or at least not comment. Those on the left often protect visible minorities from what are often hypocritical and racist attacks from those on the right. That protection sometimes extends too far into relativism and leads to us becoming apologetics for heinous, religiously encouraged, acts. However, Argus either fails to see or acknowledge the reverse hypocrisy from conservatives. Too often those from the right side of the political spectrum seek to condemn any action by a Muslim, while acting as apologetics for Christian encouraged, heinous acts. Had the false Muslim angle been present from the beginning there would certainly be fewer cons arguing that we should honour the driver's refusal to do his job. The right wing is certainly fraught with ethical problems and the left should continue to drag them into this century. However, with respect to Islam, the left should continue to combat racism, without defending evil acts. When defending the equal rights and social treatment of a minority group, it is still acceptable to denounce the immoral or evil practices committed by some members of that group.

My point is that much of the scriptures themselves are actually extreme. The fact that humans in many cultures are moral enough to ignore them illustrates that we are good despite scripture not because of scripture. Extremists are actually truer to their religion. I also believe it is important to hold as many true ideas and as few false ideas as possible. I think that overall this is important for society as well. Though, inventing legends to fill in knowledge gaps may be comforting, I'm not sure that's the best way to handle questions that should honestly be answered with 'I don't know.' Plus, I'm not sure that people of faith, fully buy into their own fill-in-the-gap stories. Studies have shown they tend to fear death as much or more than everyone else. Considering it is society and culture actually keeping religion in check, I'd say religious tenets have little value. I think those who already believe, like to cherry pick and alter meanings to suit modern morality; however, if that belief wasn't indoctrinated to begin with there would be no need for this practice. Without, indoctrinated belief scriptures are just a glimpse into the quaint mythology of the ancients. With indoctrinated belief, it is a self contradicting mess that requires hoop jumping to gel with reality.

The mistake made by Argus, does highlight the hypocrisy when it comes to religious issues, of too many on both the right and left though.

The average religious Canadian doesn't sell their particular faith door-to-door, refuse to drive buses, blow themselves up in crowded locations or protest funerals, abortion clinics or suppliers of birth control. That's a good thing. The average religious Canadian probably considers people who would commit these acts in the name of their particular religion to be extremists. That's also a good thing. However, these moderate, religious Canadians probably consider their scripture, be it in the Bible, Quran, etc. to be good, moral and important. That's a problem. Good and moderate religious Canadians, have to ignore large amounts of the scripture contained within these so called good books. Thus, the crazy extremists, we are made to fear, actually follow their religious texts more closely than moderates. How can these books be considered good, if they have to be largely ignored in order to live a moral life? Scripture is very powerful to those that believe and is often used to insight and justify evil deeds. Read this passage and honestly ask yourself if this could contribute to violent acts among true believers. People who think a god exists and has rules about how we should conduct ourselves and live our lives. They entered into a covenant to seek Allah, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; That whosoever would not seek Allah, the God of Islam, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. Is this a passage you would expect to read in a "Good Book" considered to be a moral compass? Should a good religious person adhere to this passage or ignore it? If the answer is ignore, then where do our morals come from, gods or our social systems and culture? Oh and one final point, that some may have already picked up on. That passage isn't from the Quran, it is actually from the Bible. Second Chronicles 15:12 to be exact; the words Lord God have been replaced with Allah and Israel with Islam. Sometimes, we can just reflect more honestly when we think we are judging the beliefs of others. They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. I borrowed this idea from a wise friend of mine, but it helps to highlight the fact that those who consider scripture to be good or moral, probably haven't actually read it.

Carbon dating suggests early Quran is older than Muhammad "Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda." Come on now...that's ridiculous. Next these liberal scholars will be telling us that Big Mo didn't ride off to the heavens on a winged horse either! These same egg heads probably think the earth is older than 10,000 years too.

Exactly! You'll find that a lot of conservative* support our broken electoral system simply because it gives their 1/3 a shot at absolute power. It seems that democracy is less important than getting what you want. However, I am pleased that the autocratic leadership of Stephen Harper has rekindled a movement to disunite the right. The former Reformer types are very big on democracy and are in favour of PR.

I'm glad the guy is going to quit his job. If you can't drive a bus containing, perfectly legal, advertising that you don't agree with...well the job is probably not a good fit anyway. I expect many righties have lost interest in supporting the driver's religious objections to doing his job now that his Islamic beliefs are known.

Ok... I don't know what to do with that... Shine on you crazy diamond! Shine on..