justme

Did the Jews go back to Nazi Germany for vacations? Another question, if they are refugees, why would they travel all the way to Canada, passing many other countries, including the US, instead of going to the nearest safe country? Is America not safe enough? The process that people are arguing that we must allow to take place is a waste of taxpayer's money. These are not refugees and the ship should have been turned away. If they want to come to Canada, they should do so through the proper channels, and allowing them in only rewards them for not doing so and encourages others to follow their example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG_xOE7uRSA Full interview: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/02/HP/A/32408/In+Depth+Pat+Buchanan.aspx

Nope, no evidence of support here. A lot of Indians in Canada come from Punjab. In the "newly industrialized" country - where a major energy source is cow dung:

I hope that the CBC isn't too conservative for you:

I think "failing" would more aptly describe your response. Per capita income does matter when talking about developing counties, but hey, facts don't matter to multiculturalists.

I guess it's worth repeating:

Per capita incomes: China: $6600 India: $3100 Philippines: $3300 Tell me again, who was responsible for the worst mass murder in Canadian history? I'll give you a hint: they're from a country where pre-arranged marriage is common.

"As late as 1966, 87 percent of immigrants were of European origin, but by 1970 that had dropped to 50 percent. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s immigrants would increasingly come from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Indeed, 40 percent of immigrants between 1978 and 1986 were of Asian origin, while less than 30 percent were European. Canadian demographics were changing rapidly." http://www.international.gc.ca/history-histoire/world-monde/1968-1984.aspx?lang=eng For a more recent breakdown of immigration, see the 2008 link from my previous post. More of your moral equivalence BS. There's a difference between a person who kills his own daughter or sister in a society that finds such behaviour abhorrent and a culture where it is considered acceptable. That you cannot see the difference or choose not to is also disturbing.

And this is from 2008 (see Canada - Permanent residents by source country on pg.23): http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/facts2008.pdf From 1999-2008, nearly the same amount of people, more in some years, came from Pakistan as the US and UK combined.

Before Trudeau's policy of multiculturalism, more than 80% of immigration came from Europe. Today, more than 80% comes from, to put it politely, developing countries. The same pattern can be found in the US with its 1965 immigration bill, Great Britain, throughout Europe and Australia. "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the purposed Bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Asia and Africa. Only haters would make such assertions." -- Senator Edward Kennedy (Chairman of the Subcommittee that conducted the hearing on the 1965 Immigration Bill) What happened? "The US added at least 40 million immigrants after 1965. Before 1965, 95% of the new immigrants had come from Europe. After 1965, 95% came from the third world. The 1965 Act has transformed American society and had consequences exactly the opposite of what were promised." -- Steven Dillon (Dean of the Honors College of Oklahoma University - 2006 gathering of the American Immigration Control Foundation) This video explains some of the problems with this immigration policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ Multiculturalism doesn't eradicate racial tension, it fuels it: How many honour killings happened in Canada prior to multiculturalism? Did we need the level of airport security we now have prior to multiculturalism? But of course, it isn't happening.

True, but it's global. Zimbabwe is trying to push the last few remaining white farmers off their land and out of the country, but that's not racism. A million white people have been forced to leave South Africa due to safety concerns since the fall of apartheid and South Africa now has an "affirmintive action" program to benefit the black majority, but that's not racism. It is only racist if preference is given to the majority in a country where the majority is white. It is racist if Americans are against millions of illegal Mexicans in their country, but Mexico's harsh laws against illegals are not - nor is it racist when the police in Singapore beat the crap out of illegals to discourage more from coming. There's nothing wrong with India's Caste system, but if they were white, it would be another matter. Americans must never forget slavery and people that were born long after it was abolished must continue to feel guilty for it, but hey, forget about the fact that slavery existed in the Middle East from biblical times up to the 19th century. There are reports about slavery still existing in Sudan, but let's forget about that too. Black people killed other black people at a faster rate than the holocaust in Rwanda, but somehow white people are responsible for that as well. Forget about all of this; we all know that racism is exclusively white.

Because it would be speaking the truth? Wait, silly me, that's not politically correct. You'd rather go along with the false multiculturalism doctrine even though you seemed to admit that not all cultures are equal - kinda like how liberals pretend that they're not liberals. A creation of the liberals over the last 40 or so years not Canadian heritage. Because I prefer facts over your argument, I don't get it. Again, I point out facts, but I'm wrong because you disagree with them. You mean I can continue to choose facts over your opinions/rants? I will, but thanks for playing the "game".

If you want to find out, since you seem to admit that not all cultures are equal, go around saying that the culture Canada inherited from Great Britain and Europe is superior to that of immigrants coming to Canada today and see how far you get before you get accused of racism. Can you as easily prove your own arguement? I rest my case. You think that because Christianity was in the Middle East for centuries before Islam came along that the Muslims were justified? That's hilarious. Christianity isn't something that Europe imposed on the Middle East, yet that did not stop Islam from attacking Europe, and India for that matter, long before the crusades. What happened before Islam was created is also irrelevant to the conflict between Islam and Christianity for the obvious reason that Islam did not exist, but nice try. You can try to spin it however you like, but the fact is that the crusades were a response to Christians being attacked by Muslims in land that they had long lived in before Islam. You mean a tax? And no, that's not all that it says. Yes, there are peaceful verses in the Qu'ran... written when Muhammad had no power. I am aware of what Allah means, but Jews and Christians are considered "people of the book". Now, go re-read the verse. Here are a couple more to chew on: "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (Qu'ran Surrah 9, Verse 30) "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." (Qu'ran Surrah 5, Verse 51)

However you want to argue it, the government will not mandate what I respect. That said, it's common knowledge that there is heavy emphasis on equality. But with a name like Salim Mansur, you probably think he's just a white racist. Here we go with the moral equivalence.... Check again, muslims invaded/attacked much of christendom, including four of the five patriarchates: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem long before the first crusade was called in 1095. And, of course, it was done for religious reasons. Constantinople was the location of the largest church, which was later converted to a mosque. The crusades were called to secure holy lands, where churches were destroyed and christians attacked, for pilgrimages. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qu'ran Surrah 9, Verse 29) Islam gave people three choices: convert, accept second-class status, or be killed. And hostility towards Christians and Jews is right in the Qu'ran. Multiculturalism and political correctness are pushed by liberals. You can put a different label on it, but the content remains the same.

"The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiculturalism I'm aware of the nonsense that the politically correct spew, but the reality is that islam spread by persecution, and was stopped in France, and later in Vienna - on September 11th, 1683. It'll be interesting to see if Europe can resist a third muslim invasion via immigration and high birthrate. Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys in London. You mean argue with confused liberals? I do it all the time.

Multiculturalism argues that all cultures are equal, but they're not. Anyone that tries to pass this crap off as culture that's equal to the culture that Canada inherited from Britain and Europe is speaking out of the wrong orifice. And as far as I'm concerned, hyphenated Canadians are tourists.

Multiculturalism is a joke that makes talk of national identity an oxymoron, and yes, we already went over his flawed charter. "Multiculturalism does little more than affirm our commitment to moral and ethical relativism.... That is, it affirms that we stand for precisely nothing." -- Robert Martin The etc include his national energy program and tax-and-spend economic policies? It's quite amusing to watch a so-called conservative defend Trudeau though. What's the matter, haven't got the courage to admit being liberal? You can always use the word "progressive" to escape it.

Trudeau was also reduced to a minority government in the 70s that barely won and leaned on the NDP for survival. Forgetting that in your old age?

"...the fact you think I'm a leftist is funny...." -- Jack Weber I suppose you think the Liberal party is the center? LOL

If by "our" you mean liberals, sure.

And you call yourself a conservative? Considering that Macdonald helped bring the provinces together to form the country, and later expanded it to include other provinces, yeah I would say he's a founding father. Trudeau was a modern day politician that tried to redefine Canada and demonstrated poor judgement throughout his life - including his admiration for Hitler.

Considering that the average age of a Canadian is greater than the age of the Charter, how do you figure that it's their heritage? And of course, it does matter that Quebec rejects it. It does matter when it is flawed, but then I guess if the Conservatives were to change it, we could just as easily say that what you think doesn't matter.

The monarchy and British common law are Canadian heritage. The Charter isn't even 30 years old yet. I know that Liberals would like people to believe that Trudeau was the father of Canada, but such is not the case. John A. Macdonald is more deserving of such a title than Trudeau.

Who cares about the Trudeau Charter? It doesn't stop employment equity from disciminating against people because they're white, but does allow for the restriction of free speech and has weasel clauses. Our values and laws that define Canada come not from Trudeau or the Liberal party, but from our heritage.

And wait in line for it. I don't think one plane here and there will be considered high priority orders. The price on the F-35s may be giving people sticker shock, but that's for the total package - not just the planes. Once training simulators, infrastructure and the like is in place, the cost of planes would drop. Divide up the F-35s between Cold Lake and Bagotville, and you have 32 each with a plane leftover. Given the size of Canada, if we were to really get serious about the armed forces, we should probably have three fighter jet air wings: west, central and east. At 32 each, that'd be 96. Add to that a couple dozen for maritime units, a dozen on a carrier for each coast, and you'd have a total of 120. Throw in some extras, and you'd still have less than the number of F-18s that Canada bought - 138. I don't think that's unreasonable, and consider that Australia, a nation with 2/3 our population, plans to buy up to 100. As for whether or not Canada should consider other options, consider the track record Canada has for replacing equipment. We need the most advanced plane we can get to ensure that it will remain relevant for as far into the future as possible because it's not likely to be replaced for a long time. And yes, because Canada would most likely act as part of a coalition, it makes sense to use the same aircraft that our allies will be using.