dre

We do. We criminalize intolerable behavior. That's enough... immigrants need to obey the laws of the land, nothing more. People are free to think what they want... plenty of Canadians hate gay people, plenty of them are racist, plenty of them are misogynist. That's ok as long as this sentiment does not cause them to harm someone else, and if they do then they will be subject to civil or criminal law.

Main reason is because there are not very many conservatives in Canada and without either a major scandal like sponsorship, or poor leaders like Dione, and Ignattief running against them, their chance of winning becomes very low. And that's exactly why they play to the center and act like liberals which is what Betsy is complaining about, and that's why Harper played wack-a-mole with all the womb-goons in his party and tried to keep them quiet.

http://www.cicnews.com/2014/08/government-canada-citizenship-birth-provision-083672.html The data is from a report by former Immigration minister Jason Kenney which was marked "secret" no doubt because he would have looked stupid taking up this issue if he disclosed how minuscule the "problem" is. Its just political sloganeering and an attempt to tap into anti outsider and xenophobic sentiment for political reasons. Sorta like the moronic "canadian values" test where government bureaucrats will decide what Canadian values are then expect applicants to be dumb enough to admit to not sharing them, or mandatory minimum sentencing and cracking down on crime when crime rates are at an all time low. We have some real problems... Decades of short sighted trade policy have resulted in stagnant wages... our economy relies to heavy on the sale of commodities that will probably be priced low for a long time to come... The number one consumer of our oil exports is on the verge of energy independance... We have a massive infrastructure deficit, etc, etc, etc. We should push government to focus on those things, not meaningless bullshit.

This issue is so tiny that its not even worth talking about. .1% of total births. Not even enough to constitute a statistical anomaly. Do have any evidence what-so-ever so suggest this is a problem worth anybodies time?

One thing for sure... the very best thing for liberals is for conservatives to keep telling themselves they lost because of media bias, or the lack of conservative fundamentalism that Betsy would like to see more of. Its gonna be a loooooooong time in the wilderness if that's their plan.

This post is just a silly strawman. Trudeau never said he would open the gate to everyone that comes knocking. You wasted your time creating a whole thread about something that didn't happen.

That was coming up on a century ago, before MAD doctrine was in place. Its rather unlikely that any of the major powers will engage in open war in todays world. They all know the earth would be scorched on both sides.

Not sure what youre on about. I didnt suggest that. Those are the lowest ranked prime ministers in polls of Canadians (as opposed to partisan forum hacks).

We were able to work with the Soviets to mutually reduce our nuclear arsenals before idiots in the east and west started saber rattling and starting or fueling wars in the middle east, withdrawing from ABM treaties, etc. And never mind encouraging despotic regimes to spend less... We are actually SUPPLYING them with weapons.

This thread is stupid. There have been much worse prime ministers than either Trudeaus according to the Canadian people. Abbot, Bowell, Turner, Tupper, Campbell, Thomspon, Meighen, Clarke, Pearson, Mulroney, Borden, Bennet....

This is stupid. We should be encouraging the whole world to spend less, including our potential adversaries. The likely "allied" powers already spendi about 40 times what the likely "axis" powers do. This is a joke. Mike Pense can go fvck himself. And make no mistake about it... if we do increase spending it wont be to hire more soldiers or equip the ones we have better. It will be made purchasing super expensive stuff from government lobbying corporations. The US spends hundreds of billions on its military but troops still show up to fight without body armor or properly armored vehicles, and they go home in body bags or so mentally damaged they end up homeless. And the government and military treats them like shit when they get back. This is all a huge scam. Canada will spend what its citizens feel like spending.

By the same token, Iran has been invaded multiple times, but has never invaded or threatened to invade any of its neighbors. It has its proxies mostly in Shia areas (Hezbollah, Assad, the new Iraqi government, etc) like all middle tier regional players do. The bottom line is that all this bluster comes from politicians and chicken hawks. Intelligence agencies even in places like Israel and the US don't believe Iran is much of a threat at all. Some people just watch too many movies... and some people just want to watch more wars from the safety of their sofas.

He would have done exactly the same thing Harper did. Ease credit. And that's what every other western country did as well. If you want to credit someone with Canada not being as impacted by the global recession than other countries that person would be sir John A MacDonald who nationalized our central bank in 1938.

The US has been unwittingly HELPING Iran take over the middle east. Like putting a Shia Iranian proxy in control of Iraq and its untold oil riches for example. This isn't about nations its about sects. The Shia have Iran and Iraq, and Syria, but they aren't going to be able to go any further than that. They are boxed in by Sunni powerhouses like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. And they probably will eventually lose control of Syria simply because there's such a large Sunni majority there. Eventually ISIL or some group like them is going to form another Sunni state with part of Syria and Iraq. If it were not for the US, Iran would have HALF the power and influence they have now.

If you dont like immigration then fvck your wife without birth control. Ejaculate into her vagina and make a little baby. If you have more than two, then you are doing your part to reduce immigration. If you dont youre just blowing hot air. Because immigration targets are set to sustain population growth... and the businesses and banks that run the government are never going to enact policies that shrink the population.

Blah blah liberal this, liberalism that. This post is particular inane. You talk about "liberalism" turning Canada into a "basket case" and "public safety". But this is one of the safest places to live in all of human history. And violent crime and murder has been in decline for almost 30 years. The problem is if you have EVEN ONE adverse outcome "law and order, get tough" conservatives are howling with outrage and crapping in their little panties. You are NEVER going to have a system without adverse outcomes. Conservative outrage over things like this is just part of their personalities. No system is even possible that would stop this.

Well you could also have the court order him to report for a blood test once a week to make sure he is still taking his meds, and arrest him for breach of probation if he doesnt.

To expand on this a little more.... Facebook users may be convinced that they "own" whatever content they post to Facebook, but the legal reality is a little bit different. If you read Facebook's legal terms of service, you'll find that "[y]ou own all of the content and information you post on Facebook," but with some very specific and important caveats. So what does it mean to legally "own" your Facebook posts? Your Words and Information While Facebook may say that you "own" your posts, it turns out that much of the legal impact of your ownership boils down to your privacy settings. Facebook is constantly making changes to its privacy policy, but the bottom line is this: Whatever words or information you post under the "Public" setting are fair game for anyone to use. That means if you share your recipe on Facebook, and celebrity chef Bobby Flay decides to appropriate it for his next cookbook, you won't be getting any royalties. This is partially because recipes generally aren't available for copyright, but most of your posts containing words and information aren't either. Your Photos and Videos Facebook users have slightly more rights to the photos and videos which you post to the site, as those works are easier to protect via copyright. However, Facebook's terms allow them "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook." In layman's terms, Facebook has license to use the photos and videos you post (which you own) in any way it sees fit, without paying you, and it can transfer that license to third parties. Typically, you could sue a company like Facebook for using your image without your permission (or without paying you) under your rights of publicity. But by joining Facebook, you've essentially given the company carte blanche to do what it will with your images and videos, not to mention whomever Facebook decides to share your media with.

You cant expect the government to not listen to what basically amount to public statements. In order to have a reasonable expectation of privacy there needs to be a basis for it. So for example a private message on facebook (or an email on gmail) should require a court issued warrant for the government to even get their hands on. But if you blast stuff on the internet out to the public the government should be able to read it just like anyone else can. Read and understand the TOU of services you use. If you need to talk about illegal activities online than use a secure E2E service. I use Pidgin for planning all my terrorist attacks, murders, robberies, tax evasion strategies, etc. The government is allowed to use your information unless you have reason to expect that its private. If you do they need a warrant. If they just browse facebook the way an ordinary person would, than thats legal. But if they convince facebook to give them data they would not normally see without a warrant they are breaking the law. Governments hate your privacy and love getting at your private data. That's why we have things like FISA in the US, and the government granting "after the fact" immunity to telecoms that allow warrantless taps. For now though the law does offer you SOME protection.

Add yourself to that 1%. That was one of the poorest attempts at English I have ever witnessed. If you're gonna live here learn the language man!

There would be nothing wrong with using an oven or a bunch of toasters or a few hundred incandescent bulbs to heat her home. All resistance elements are 100% efficient, less a tiny bit of noise, electromagnetic radiation, or light.

This kind of inference basically amounts to having an army of civil servants reading tea leaves. You are better off spending that money on more real investigation targeted at high risk areas.

Right and they are in a while lot of trouble. Nominal GDP has fallen alongside population stagnation, and they have been forced to spend 30 trillion yen in stimulus, and now are talking about a 9% sales tax to fund one of the largest public debts in the world. About the only thing that can save them now is inflation.

Riiiiiiiight... And a potential immigrant is going to say "Yes!". Dear god.

Yeah I wonder if Argus could pass one of his little tests Hating on fags and treating women as second class citizens is as Canadian as beer, maple syrup, and hockey unfortunately. How about we ALL take the test and even the "old stock canadians" that fail get deported I hear Antarctica is nice this time of year.