Jump to content

Peter F

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter F

  • Birthday 10/16/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,552 profile views

Peter F's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. I certainly hope so. About time too.
  2. So simple! By the power of M-103, I do hereby and forthwith say Islamophobe! and point my finger.
  3. But you don't destroy the world even when you hear music that makes you feel like it. Whats holding you back? Couldn't possibly be your mind, could it? The very thing that is controlled by music?
  4. is it instrumental or does it have lyrics? If it has lyrics are they used to undermine Western Sensibilities? Or are they of the approved type?
  5. My mind was controlled by Barry Manilow, Abba, Supertramp, Pink Floyd and Gordon Lightfoot. All at the same time!

      Gabriel Feraud : I knew a man who was stabbed to death by a woman; gave him the surprise of his life. 

      Laura : I once knew a woman who was beaten to death by a man. I don't think it surprised *her* at all.

      From 'the Duellists' (1977)

    1. bcsapper


      I looked that up.  Ridley Scott's first movie, no less.  I'm going to find it and watch it.  Thanks.

  6. How about concerned citizens getting themselves organized and running a preferred candidate for parliament? Too much effort, and besides , then it would be necessary to somehow convince others that the preferred candidate is not a one-issue candidate but would address their concerns too. Sort of a being accountable to the electorate kinda thing. This Geomocracy idea is a fantasy of the lazy who want influence but have no desire to lift a finger in the process.
  7. Very little as I recall. Southern states uses slaves so slavery is legal there. Northern states don't allow slavery. Eventually this issue comes to a head and the Southern states cecede for fear that the more numerous northerners will force and end to southern ways. Not a hell of a lot but it does lead to the next section of history on what the Northern victory means for Canada . That bit takes many more classes to cover.
  8. Fool. You live in a house full of rats. You have had rats for years. You have lost your mind because now you see a rat that has a white spot on its nose and think if you get rid of that rat then all will be well.
  9. What is a 100% imported problem? Folks opening fire on crowds in Vegas or folks driving vehicles into crowds in New York? But Khadr is Canadian albeit perhaps not home-grown considering the time he spent here compared to the time he spent away prior to incarceration . But then thats a terrible measuring stick since there are vast numbers of non-homegrown Canadians living quite peaceful and law-abiding lives in this country. yet, many extremely violent folks, like the entirely assimilating long established American in Vegas, was a radical. Again, your assimilation solution appears to solve nothing. Terminating immigrants solves nothing. And why this desire to expel? Are not court-rooms and prisons better? Besides, many folks associate with radicals without a clue that they are doing so. See all the neighbours and co-workers and family members who say things like 'This is a complete shock' and 'he seemed like a nice quiet guy' etc etc. I think your desire to solve vicious murders by refusing anyone to live here is daft.
  10. How's about not sending Canadian government flunkies off to partake in clearly illegal (in Canada) activities. Or, How's about our security agencies getting their shit together and facts straight afore feeding such crap to foreign powers . Or, How's about having our government agencies not lie and bullshit and cover-up their involvement whenever they do the crap listed above. I think that would be a rational policy.
  11. and again no knowledge of the cases approved or rejected. You have a gut feeling, a suspicion, but no facts.
  12. ...and ~30%, according to the article, have been rejected. I assume because they didn't meet the definition of refugees. So, Argus, if the IRB accepts refugee's because they don't meet the definition of a refugee and reject refugee's because they don't meet the definition of a refugee, what is one to think? Well I think we have this obvious contradiction because you have assumed, without a shred of evidence, that those accepted by the IRB don't meet the definition of a refugee. You did not sit on the board and hear the cases. You have nothing at all to base your assumption on. Nada. On the other hand, If the IRB heard the cases - as the article linked claims - and based on the evidence before them accepted 70% of the claims and rejected 30% of the claims then that results in no conundrum at all. This seems entirely sensible. The article points out that the government claims this is a rational result considering that the IRB backlog is huge so they would naturally deal with expediting some obvious claims while letting the dubious (on the face of it) claims wait. So, again, the IRB heard some claims, considered 70% to be legit and 30% not good enough dammit. Whats your claim? These so-called refugee's don't meet the definition of refugee's. How so? They're Haitians! I believe the IRB knows a hellofalot more about the claims that were accepted than you do by a mile.
  • Create New...