Bonam

Yeah, it would be disturbing, since the Jew should know better, since any "campus climate response team" or similar would reflexively side with the Muslim against the "Zionist".

Agreed, I think it probably will be a while too. And it probably won't be social change that gets us there, but technological change...

Yes, now. Note the topics being discussed in this thread are changes in how things are now.

No, the glut won't last forever. When it ends and oil prices go back up, that will just restimulate growth in other forms of energy (natural gas, renewables, etc) which is currently stalling due to abundance of cheap oil. The point is that unlike 10-20 years ago when the uninterrupted flow of middle-eastern oil was of paramount strategic importance, that is no longer the case today. Prices might go up and down, but Western nations now have enough options to keep the lights on with or without middle eastern oil.

-1, why bother lol?

Why not? The world has a glut of oil anyway. Frankly, oil this low probably hurts the US (and most definitely the Canadian) economy more than it helps it, there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of lost profits among US and Canadian energy companies.

Are they required to "live in drag" in order to be allowed to be considered intersexed? Will someone challenge them based on what gender box they tick if they don't appear to follow a stereotype of the kind of lifestyle they are supposed to live? If any substantial money or opportunity is at stake, and there is no clear and enforceable method of verification, you can be sure people will lie. The reason it's "never been a real issue" is because people's gender is implicitly verified when they submit a copy of their ID which includes their name, photo, and sex, all of which are presumed official as the ID is issued by the government. Would you refuse, say, $50k, if all you had to do was fill out a form and say that you are "male", knowing no one would ever or could ever check? Even if you would, consider how many people wouldn't.

Except that there are plenty of arguments that to one person might seem not racist but to you seem racist. Those steeped in social justice ideology have a different conception of what constitutes racism than those not steeped in said ideology. Like MH says, if you have a problem with a particular argument, explain what you think is wrong with the argument rather than simply screaming racist and bigot, as is so sadly typical on this forum.

If you have a point to make regarding that program and how it relates to this thread, make it.

It sounds like it's a program designed to select immigrants that have relevant skills/experience to contribute to Canada's economy. I agree with that intent, to the extent that we decide to bring in immigrants at all, they should be ones chosen based on such criteria. I have not researched how effective it is in achieving its intent.

Yes, I've read them.

Argus has spent many threads posting various links regarding the costs and problems associated with the current levels of immigration to Canada. Go review some of those. I stand by my statement.

I've found that it's generally not worth the effort to post cites on these forums. For one, they take time to find, and secondly, they are usually dismissed out of hand anyway if the person requesting them disagrees with what they say. The very low level of discussion on this forum does not warrant the effort to do it.

I don't think the existence of the CBC is a problem in itself; I'm not fundamentally opposed to a state-funded broadcaster existing. That said, I agree that it would be better if the leftist bias was removed. I don't know enough about the CRTC to comment. Public funding of campaigns... I can certainly see the argument against it, but I'm not too offended by it as long as the amount is small enough. While shoveling public money to political parties is inherently slimy, allowing parties to have some baseline level of funding so that fundraising isn't the be-all end-all of politics has its merits. The extent to which politics in America is all about fund-raising is problematic, in my opinion, and I can't think of a good solution besides some level of public funding.

It should be obvious that Canada is already accepting immigrants and refugees at a rate that puts a strain on (or perhaps surpasses) Canada's ability to successfully integrate all the newcomers. Taking in even more would be self-destructive. Of course, that doesn't prevent politicians from promising to do so if they think it will get them short term political gains.

Well, I'm too lazy to look up any stats on the matter right now, but I grew up in Vancouver and almost all my friends were either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from Asia (China, HK, Taiwan, etc). I've kept in touch with many of them and probably about half lean conservative these days. I don't think that sample is atypical.

Obviously any set of rules that approached being accurately described by the above would be absurd, but at the same time, we don't want Canadian elections to become giant public circuses fueled by billions of dollars from rich donors as they are in the US. Some restrictions regarding campaign financing are probably in order, although the ones already in existence in Canada are probably about right.

No, the sarcasm was plenty obvious. It's on the reader if they can't pick it out.

Hah, well you'll find no shortage of that here

I agree that it's unfortunate that it's taboo... but I don't even see it benefiting the left much any more. Immigrants vote for all 3 parties. While some immigrants might be tempted by policies that make it easier for them to bring over their relatives, others would be just as happy if the door was shut behind them. And most vote based on issues unrelated to immigration policy, given that they are already here.

Calling someone homophobic, misogynist, or racist are all clear and unambiguous insults. If you want someone to "reflect on their thoughts", try posting something more constructive rather than namecalling.

After today, there are a lot of companies down to pretty good value to buy in at across all sectors. I'm hoping we get a few more days like this next week!

I wouldn't hold leveraged and/or inverse funds for more than a few days tops, honestly. They decay pretty badly over time.

Yeah, with today being another down day, I'm starting to re-deploy some cash reserves to be ready to buy some more.