Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

justcrowing's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Is it really an American telling Canadians how they should run their country? That is amazing since Americans have serious issues of their own that is far from being rectified. Thanks for informing us that we have an American expert on Canadian politics amongst us.
  2. Do you know this to be fact? How can you make such a blanket statement so please prove it.
  3. And what is your point? Do you know who Harper supporters are or are they supportive of Conservative policies?
  4. Unions have never been able to organize banks ... bank staff shows them out the door. Ever wonder why bank staff prefers to remain non union?
  5. Then what benefit would spying be since spying does not have anything to do with control. If it has, please explain to the rest of us but I doubt you will because you can't.
  6. Her body, hers alone to decide. Yes it sucks, welcome to the one thing women can lord over a male , ya know apart from that parking thing Quote Okay I buy that but if she chooses to keep the child why does the male suddenly have responsibility? After all it is her body and her right then so should the child she brings into this world. If the male is not considered when it comes to abortion as it is her right & right alone .. then same should apply when she alone decides to keep the baby. Is this not a double standard?
  7. A woman's right to abortion, yes if her life is threatened or that of the baby or raped - then I agree she should have it. To use abortion as a form of birth control, then she should pay for it and not the taxpayer. To abort because the fetus is the not desired gender ... I do not agree and if she chooses to do so, then she should pay for that privilege. Hypothetical questions? * Woman wants to abort the child but the male doesn't & would like to keep the child and raise it. Does she still have that right to abort because in essence in order to become pregnant it takes two to tango so she should no longer be a sole decision as another person is now involved. * The woman wants to keep the child, but the male doesn't for various reasons. She has the baby and he is then made to make child support payments whether he can afford it or not. And she can also deny him visitation or being part of the child's life as her right. Does the male not have any rights outside of the sperm & pocketbook? If we take equality seriously as is chanted by women activists - where is the equality in this instance? The fact that she permitted a sperm to enter her body she has given up some rights Your take on these questions will be interesting.
  8. Can you please provide more details and a link?
  9. Rue - the Immigration & Refugee Board would love to have these scumbags deported but the scum have dozens of loopholes and avenues of appeal. Often the home country does not want these people back and will not issue travel documents and if no other country will accept the deportee then that person can become stateless and we are forced to keep them here. Also, these people are protected under our Charter of Rights & Freedoms whether or not they are Canadians. Why do you think that Canada is known among criminals as the #1 country to which to flee. Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  10. That is not the point justcrowing, you posted the material as if it were your own. It's not. Unless Thelonious had noted this, I wouldn't have known.I have reported your post to the moderator. ---- I don't think we allow people into Canada based on their perceived value to Canada. In fact, I don't know how we allow people into this country: the process is largely arbitrary at this point. I started another thread on this issue but I guess this is the place to be. I wanted to separate the issue of worldwide Islamist terrorism from our immigration policies. Our immigration law and regulations have undergone increasingly useless changes since 1976, and government bureaucrats have less and less control over the process. In a world where a plane ticket to cross the Atlantic costs a few hundred dollars, anybody can travel. Moreover, it is almost impossible to refuse someone entry, and basically impossible to deport them. It would take a federal government with nerves of steel to confront all of this. If Harper forms a majority government with a coalition of MPs outside of the urban centres, and those MPs would have to have the courage to withstand despicable charges from the English-Canadian media. Canada accepts immigrants now in three broad groups: family class, refugees, skilled workers. First of all, any suggestion of limiting immigration just means refusing skilled workers. The family class and refugee groups are basically out of anyone's control. At most, the bureaucrats can delay the processing. So, calls to "restrict immigration numbers" is no solution. Instead, I think family should be restricted to spouse and kids under 18 - that's it. Family class should not include parents or anyone else. This breaks the cornerstone of the 1976 law (family reunification) but so what. The whole refugee processing system has to thrown out. To do it right, it would probably take use of the notwithstanding clause. All refugees, without exception, must be processed abroad. In addition, the appeals procedure must be revamped. In the case of family class, with a sponsor in Canada, not much can probably be done. But the current refugee appeal process is Kafkaesque. I agree Argus that we should be more circumspect about importing a potential problem. I'd do away with the live-in nanny programme. It has been the source of so many, many problems. We can't simply refuse people because they are Muslim or Atheist or Left-Handed, nor would we want to. But it must be easier to refuse someone if there's a doubt. I have never bought into this "we need immigrants to pay for all the retiring babyboomers". But there's something wonderful that Australia, Canada and the US are countries that welcome foreigners and give them citizenship. Well August I missed posting the link & fleebag posted it but he also should have commented on the story rather than create an issue - my intent was not to post as my own but admittedly I did use the words former government as the article is not dated and would have referred to it. Is the current government ready to deal with the immigration problem? If not, then in all probability it is best to leave things as they are. I believe some groups have had their fund raising cut off and the latest round up proves the current government is trying to do something positive. Right now Canada has more jobs that workers to fill them - with all this immigration, why do you think these jobs remain unfilled? Not all jobs are for skilled workers nor are all immigrants skilled workers. So why the numbers on welfare?
  11. So Fleabag do you agree or disagree with the article? Be my guest and tell us how we can allow this as this happened under the noses of the previous government. No I do not troll, I merely post if and when I choose to - why should that be a problem to you?
  12. How did the former Canadian Government respond to the hard facts brought to light by the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service, that more than 50 militant groups such as the Al Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, Sikh militants, as well as former war criminals from Rwanda, Bosnia and other genocide bearing countries continue to find safe haven and carry out their fund raising activities within Canada? Moreover, can it not be argued that Canada’s immigration refugee policies, which permit unconditional entry into the country of thousands of undocumented claimants each year, create increased risk to our national security? We must consider adapting a tougher and a far more costly approach to the management of undocumented refugee claimants by detaining a greater number of such individuals until sufficient and timely security and medical background verifications can be completed. Under current practice, refugee claimants are readily admitted (without medical testing) after meeting a minimal threshold screening process at the port of entry. Security background checks are only initiated after a refugee claimant has been approved. In the US and Australia, undocumented asylum seekers are detained under mandatory legislation. Detention of undocumented refugee claimants although permissible under existing Canadian law, is rarely used. Proposed reforms allowing for “front-loaded” security screening of refugee claimants must be used in tandem with increased detentions for undocumented claimants. It is at the stage of initial entry where refugee claimants pose the greatest security risks. Under current immigration policy, mandatory security background screening is carried out for individuals seeking permanent entry to Canada. Applicants for non-immigrant visas seeking admission to visit, study or work in Canada, are generally not subject to any security background screening. Individuals from designated countries are required to obtain an entry visa and to demonstrate as a condition of visa issuance, a likelihood to leave Canada upon the expiry of the visa. The developments in the United States would now seem to justify the need to introduce security background screening measures for selected non-immigrant visa seekers.
  13. Why not state clearly that one is not interested in dating or other involvement and to let this talk serve as a warning that persistence will lead to a formal complaint. If the person continues to ask for a date, then you have given warning and now have cause for action. Otherwise, quit whining and find another job if you can't face someone who is being offensive to yoiu. In future, refuse to dance, dine, have coffee or associate in any way other than for business matters in a professional way.
  14. Big jump in Liberal support & what have yee bin smokin' darlin ??? May 23, 2006 Conservatives Surge To 43% Support Nationally – Level Not Seen Since Mulroney Government In November Of 1988 http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3087 A few involved in Adscam? Wooohoooo!!! a few were caught and exposed but then there are those like Chretien who know how to cover their tracks [anyone remember Shawinigate?}
  • Create New...