Keepitsimple
-
Posts
5,774 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Keepitsimple
-
-
There is no end in sight to the coming Third World and Islamic migrations to Europe.
What is to stop the Islamic world and Third World from coming and repopulating the continent with their own kind, as the shrinking native populations of Europe die out???
Will Old Europe be recognizable even in ten years from now? How about 20 years?
“Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide,” wrote James Burnham in his 1964 “Suicide of the West.”
A very unsettling truth......
-
So now you have a demand (John's) and a supply (addicts) with no legal place complete the transaction. Logic says they will keep doing what they are doing today unless you crack down really hard on street level prostitution which would be the exact opposite of what the SCC wanted to accomplish by striking down the law.
Makes a lot of sense....there is always that dreaded law - the Law of Unintended Consequences.
-
Every year there are thousands of illegal or undocumented immigrants who come into Canada and soon disappear into the population. Does anybody really believe that a terrorist would need the cover of refugee status, being investgated, sponsored and tracked in Canada?
There is no reason why Canada cannot absorb these people from the Middle East - and gain the benefits of increased, younger future citizens.
You can be a sympathizer and even an enabler - without being an actual "terrorist" per se. Very hard to weed out....but if we don't pay attention, those real terrorists that might be hiding among those "undocumented immigrants" you speak of will find a supportive network already in place. Mainstream Islamic terrorism (not the one-off nut cases) is very strategic and has made it clear they are willing to play a "long game". We naively ignore this reality at our own peril.
-
Given the following, what would the US think about Canada bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees within a few miles of their borders? They might end up building that wall after all. Trudeau is a breath of fresh air compared to that hard-hearted, uncaring Obama, right?
In the four years since the Syrian civil war began the U.S. has taken in only 1,300 Syrians, despite the hundreds of thousands admitted by nations around the world. Following the mass arrivals onto European shores in recent weeks and the clamor for Western countries to do more, the White House announced that the U.S. would up its intake of Syrian refugees to 10,000 in the next fiscal year.
But extensive background check requirements and a lengthy processing procedure could mean that not only will those refugees take more than a year to arrive, but that the number that is finally admitted could be much lower.
“The U.S. background check process for Syrian refugees can last anywhere from 12 months to indefinitely,” said Becca Heller, director of the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, a non-governmental organization that provides legal representation to Iraqi and Syrian refugees.
Link: http://www.vocativ.com/news/231688/obamas-pledge-to-syrian-refugees-may-take-years/
-
The feminists will have fun with this one. Stay-at-home Moms popping kids out.
-
So, your contention is that there is no potential for large atmospheric increases in CO2 (doubling, tripling) to be harmful? Fine. Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof.
I don't think oxygen is bad. I never said CO2 was bad. I don't think mercury is bad. But they will all kill you quickly in high enough concentrations. And they will have long term effects on the environment in lower concentrations. The question is what right do you have to change the atmospheric makeup before you can provide proof it's safe to do so?
No evidence of harm. That's wrong but let's say for the minute it's true.
I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe.
So, why do you think you should be able change the atmosphere just because you claim there is "no evidence of harm"?
Forget about the IPCC. No doubt they're a bunch of grant-seeking rabble rousing socialists trying to bring capitalism to its knees.
Clearly, the oil companies know best what's good for us and they should just bring all their proof that the drastic increases in atmospheric CO2 are not only safe, they'll turn the earth into paradise. You go and bring back the proof. Let us know when you have it.
Oh, and while you're at it, could you also prove that all of the other activities in producing fossil fuels are turning the earth into a wonderful paradise as well? Fracking. Deepwater drilling. Supertankers hauling massive amounts of hydrocarbons through ecologically sensitive areas. Refining.
Show us the proof so we can all sing the praises of fossil fuels.
There are people who work in actual greenhouses for hours at a time - at CO2 levels that are 2 to 4 times (or more) as much as today's atmosphere - and yet no health implications have been reported (and you can bet that the alarmists would be all over that tidbit)....and of course crops have higher yields with increased CO2. So.....no harm for humans, great for food production. Those are facts. So it's not the CO2 itself - it's the still imprecise understanding of what effect CO2 has on Earth's temperature - and whether that increase is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing.
-
How does one have an "open-source contract bid" by precluding aircraft by name prior?
Personally, I would be highly surprised if any aircraft is selected prior to the next election.......at such a time, the only aircraft that will be in production will be the F-35.....
They're just kicking the can down the field....an easy election promise for them.....makes it look like they are "saving" money when in fact, the F35 will likely be the chosen craft 6 or 7 years down the road.....after we've spent billions pro-longing the life of our CF-18s.....and we'll have lost our spot in line to become a major player in the F35 Global supply chain. Another Sea King helicopter debacle in the making.
-
Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.
The unelected IPCC objective.....Social Engineering cloaked in save-mankind, sheep's clothing. The failure of Kyoto has knocked these guys off their plan. Paris won't just be about targets - the Social Engineers have to get governments talking about money again. The rich pay the poor.
-
Somebody has to fix it - sooner or later. As long as it's "fixed", not re-designed.....
-
Possibly you didn't read the links, which pointed out that while Tuvalu isn't "sinking" right now, there are other effects of climate change that are already impacting them.
I'm happy to agree that Florida will be one of the first places to be underwater.
Then we're reached some common ground.....and I'm happy with that.....
-
Yes, your first source is incomplete as far as identifying the effects climate change has been having on Tuvalu. Luckily, your second source fills in some of the blanks.
Put all the bafflegab aside - as I said,if the seas are rising to any extent - you'll see the results in the Florida keys - which are actually lower than Tuvalu. Until you see the seas washing over the keys, you can bet that anything going on in Tuvalu is caused by something other than "Global Warming". Agreed?
-
The point we were talking about was how Trudeau has been more inclusive of the Muslim community. I brought up the mosque issue because so many people called him a terrorist for going to a mosque.
I double-checked after and saw that Harper did something similar 7 years ago and instead of deleting my post I edited it. The fact still remains that Trudeau has said nothing inflammatory about Muslims and he has gone out of his way to include them.
Harper alienated the Muslim community with the niqab stance, the suggestion that mosques breed terrorists and by not going to a mosque (*during this election campaign*) and rubbing elbows with Muslims the way JT did.
Many conservative analysts and posters here are saying the same thing, I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that Harper was warm to Muslims or anywhere near as inclusive as JT was.
You may prove to be right - but keep in mind that Trudeau has never been in power so it's easy to sound "inclusive". He has a track record of being impulsive so let's see how inclusive he is when events overtake him and the pressure is on. As Mr. Spock once said on Star Trek: "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.
-
Making stuff up? My own ETA at the end my post mentioned the 2008 visit to a mosque.
He hasn't gone to many Churches or Sinogogues either......but he was invited back to that same Mosque in April of this year.....
-
Not true.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/12/tuvalu_that_sin_1.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1
http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/debilt-the-netherlands.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/
I admit, I'm often comforted by reading dissenting opinions by 'experts' that climate change is normal, that it's not that bad, that it's just 'alarmist nonsense', so I can understand people clinging to that - who wants to imagine that the entire human race could be essentially extinct in just a few generations? So I understand why people ignore the Tuvalu, and Northern communities who are already moving due to rising sea levels and melting ice, the videos of huge swaths of ice falling off glaciers, the wilder weather around the world, the poor Bangladeshi who have to keep moving a few feet up the beach every year, as the water laps at their feet. Its not affecting us in the West, and stuff like that always happens, right? It's very comforting to think that way, I agree. And in a few more decades, as the low lying areas become flooded and people begin moving in mass numbers to 'safe' places, our worry about 25,000 Syrian refugess will be laughable.
Anyway, as much as it grieves me, I suspect we're not going to do enough about it quickly enough - too many people prefer to be comforted than realistic.
You've mentioned Tuvalu more than once so I imagine it really concerns you. Don't fret about it. The Tuvaluans are not sinking but the President of Tuvalu has been on a soapbox to declare his population to be the first Climate Refugees - and thereby extort money from sucker donors. But hey - if you are concerned enough about rising seas - your fears should be with the Florida Keys which are actually a lower land mass than Tuvalu. They are the true "canary in the coal mine". The emperical evidence has been drowned out by the hysterical cries of environmental activists - but here's some reading for you....because if you've been duped on the most prevalent "fib" - you might want to take a closer look at some of the others......
Article One gives the facts as they were in 2010 - but the story was completely drowned out by the Climate Refugee trend...
Article Two is from 2015 and gives grudging acceptance to the fact that Tuvalu and others are not sinking.......but on queue, the alarmists have moved the goalposts.....as their argument devolves into what Climate Change could do to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
Article One: http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4236
There have, however, been occasional voices which have dissented from these alarmist views. The University of Hawaii measurements since 1977 showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades, and found that sea levels fell three millimetres between 1995 and 1997.
Cliff Ollier from the School of Earth and Environment, University of WA, wrote in a paper published in July 2009, "If you ask Google for information on sea level, you get pages of claims that the Pacific Islands are sinking in the sea. If you Google "Tuvalu", you will get messages of impending doom. And yet the best factual data available show that the islands, including Tuvalu, are not sinking. Of course, the climate alarmists will keep this true information out of the literature as long as they can."
In his paper, Ollier cited data collected in Tuvalu by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which showed that there had been no rise in sea levels in Tuvalu over the past 20 years.
These findings have been strikingly confirmed by two researchers, Paul Kench at the University of Auckland, and Arthur Webb, from the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji. Their findings have been reported in the climate alarmist New Scientist magazine. They used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. Of these, only four had decreased in size, and the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown. On Tuvalu, Webb and Kench found that seven of the nine island atolls have increased in size by more than 3 per cent since the 1950s. One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 ha, or nearly 30 per cent of its previous area. On another, a cyclone which hit Tuvalu in 1972 actually deposited 140 ha of sedimentary debris onto the eastern reef, increasing the area of the main island by 10 per cent. They found similar trends in neighbouring Kiribati, where each of the three main islands increased in size.
Yet even these studies made no impact on New Scientist. It quoted Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide who "points out that sea-level rise is already accelerating", and added that "warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously".
Article Two: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/
“There is presently no evidence that these islands are going to sink,” says Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle in France. She says that she and other researchers are trying to fight the widespread misconception that sea level rise will mean the end for atolls. However, Kench’s findings do not apply to other types of island, like the volcanic main islands of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
If atolls are not sinking, could people continue to live there? “Where shoreline changes are rapid, islanders have already had, in some cases, to move to more stable places,” says Duvat. Rural inhabitants commonly adapt in this way as their houses lack permanent foundations, she says. “The lifetime of such houses is short, allowing people to relocate quite easily.” But it would be harder for urban residents to adapt, says Duvat.
-
Blaming immigrants for their problems is a very xenophobe thing.
Hmmm, I'm sure you mean well, but that is not the way things appeared at all.
Notice how inclusive Trudeau has been with the Muslim community, making sure to let them know that he does not paint them all with the same brush? Harper never did anything like that out of fear of his base (or perhaps his own personal inclinations) and he ended up alienating a very important aspect in fighting terrorism - and that's the participation of moderate Muslims.
Ex-CSIS analyst said so as well: http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2015/10/21/Islamacism-Remarks-Strained-Trust/
How they "appeared" is more a factor of how they were made to appear......by the media and by the opposition. As "bull in a china shop" as the Conservatives are, do you really think that Harper would want to alienate such a large voting bloc as Muslims? As for Trudeau being inclusive - it's easy to say nice warm, mushy things when you're not in power - when you are not responsible for doing your share of confronting ISIS. Let's see how inclusive and tolerant he is when he actually has to make decisions......... or when he's poked by reporters and goes off-script....
But I digress - we'll just have to wait and see if Trudeau can "make things better".
-
I agree that its the extremism that must be fought, but even in my conversation with a moderate Muslim from a relatively stable country, he said "The US has created these extremists". If even moderate Muslims think Western intervention is making the situation worse, perhaps that's a message we should take seriously. Although having let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak, I can't see suddenly just everybody packing up and leaving, but surely there is a better option than bombs and drones. Especially when those bombs and drones kill non-combatants.
And therein lies the conumdrum....without some sort of containment force - none of which was forthcoming - ISIS was butchering thousands upon thousands of people - Muslims, Christians and others alike. It was happening unabated and was getting worse. As they say, "evil succeeds when good men do nothing". What a mess.
-
If more people understood this - they would know that there are offshoots and niches of supposed "Islamists" who have hijacked the faith in favour of intolerance and violence - and that is why we are in a fight against extremism. Harper and the Conservatives - like myself and any right-thinking person - knew that the battle is not with Muslims - but with those extremists/Fundamentalists who would sully the religion with their archaic intolerance....and I suspect no one hates that more than moderate Muslims. Instead, the opposition chose to paint Harper as divisive - when in fact he has always been bang on. You don't have to dislike Muslims to fight extremism - you just have to know the difference.I also asked a Muslim friend, and here's what he said about the concept of peace in Islam:
He also provided me with a couple of You-Tube links for more information. Here's a link to the shorter one:
-
....deleted - my mistake
-
It's not going to bankrupt us but it is going to come with a very high cost. And we're already bringing in hundreds of thousands of people very year, many of whom wind up in housing projects or living hand to mouth the rest of their lives. Why do we want to rush things here instead of sorting through all the refugees available in Turkey and choosing those most likely to meet our needs, and most in danger over there?
Because it's not about doing the right thing for both Canada and the refugees - it's about creating the illusion of compassionate action - about letting people see how much we care.....how much we really care. Look around at European countries - today's compassion is littered with tomorrow's ghettoes.
-
Or if the water has risen enough that your home is beneath it - already happening in some parts of the world.
Where might that be?
-
All I'm arguing is that support for the Greens is still strong despite their share declining. They still got more total votes. The vote share decline isn't entirely unexpected in an election where more people went to the polls then we've seen in over 20 years. They weren't showing up to vote Green. They were showing up to can Harper.
You can make a technical argument - but it's an uphill one. Just about a third of all Green Party votes were in BC with 8.2% of the total votes - and even there, they were heavily concentrated in a few ridings. They got 2.9% of the votes in Ontario, 2.3% in Quebec. The only provinces to break 4% were PEI with 6% and NB with 4.6%.
It's a regional party with fringe support elsewhere.
-
I suppose you haven't considered the fact that every subsequent poll showed the majority of Canadians agreed with Harper and not Trudeau on this issue? The numbers weren't even close.
I am one of those Canadians......and for personal, not partisan reasons.....I hope this particular commitment falls by the wayside.... but what I'm saying is that if it does, it will show that this fresh-faced government may not be that different than the old.
-
Don't be surprised if you see CF and DFATD personnel on the ground in planes, like I surmised. He probably can't get it done, but he'll make the effort.
That will be good enough for me......but I would expect the commitment to be fulfilled by say, end of March.....that seems reasonable given the promise he made.
-
This was a pivotal commitment by the Liberals. It played on the emotions of all those people who saw that poor child washed up on the beach - and it turned those emotions against a Prime Minister who was castigated as cold and heartless by "only" committing to 10,000 per year.
It's an important commitment to watch - one that will be straight forward to measure......just as they criticized the previous government - are they in Canada or not? It will be either the confirmation of a caring, action-oriented government - or the beginning of a recognition that Trudeau and his advisers are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing - and can't be trusted.
The Next Canadian Liberal Cabinet
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Poor old John McCallum gets the Refugee file.....he's been a loyal soldier for so long - what the heck did he do to deserve that?