Scotty
-
Posts
3,721 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scotty
-
-
Brian Mulroney was asked by a television interviewer if taxpayers would pay for ''nannies'' for his three children as they did for Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, when he was prime minister.
"No, no," Mulroney replied.
The Canadian Press reported again in November of that year that Mulroney's chief of staff, Fred Doucet, denied the family employed a government-paid nanny while Mulroney was opposition leader, saying
the woman was actually a maid who "interfaces with the children in a habitual way."
So what you are saying is that Justin Trudeau is as dishonest and corrupt and self-serving as Brian Mulroney was? This is your excuse to justify this theft of public money?!!
-
Honestly, who cares? This is much ado about nothing.
It is more public money going to pay for a millionaire's servants than Mike Duffy took from us, which you seemed to care a very, very, very, very, very, very, very great deal about!
-
The precedent was set with Trudeau the first and Mulroney. Why should Justin be any different?
Do you have evidence Trudeau the first and Mulroney had taxpayer funded nannies?
-
I have no problem with the taxpayer paying for any kind of family support for the Prime Minister of Canada and his family.
I bet you would have had a problem if the prime minister was named Harper.
-
Apparently, Newfoundland has their largest budget deficit ever. The Conservatives have been in power 12 years.
You need to distinguish between the Conservatives and the Progressive Conservatives, who are really liberals.
You cannot get elected out east without promising lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of goodies to the electorate. That's essentially all they care about. Who is offering the highest price for their vote.
-
Except the high income earners targeted are in the 250K+ range which is above the inflated salaries we are talking about.
At the rate they're going they'll get there!
-
You smeared yourself when you wrote:
So what IS the upside?
-
That's not an answer. Those are personal attacks that suggest you have no viable answer.
.
You launch personal attacks on people every day and you whine when they talk back to you? Who do you think you are anyway?
-
Not every Canadian is reacting to the refugees with fear and hate:
Yeah, lots of Canadians are morons. This is supposed to be a surprise?
-
Cite please.
Muslim rape gangs in the UK
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford
Muslim rape gangs in Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes
Pakistani child rape gangs in the UK
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/250972/one-million-child-victims-muslim-rape-gangs-uk-arnold-ahlert
Muslim rape gangs in Sweden
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Muslim rape gangs in France
-
And is that fear of hateful attitudes based in ignorance or based in knowledge?
There is plenty of knowledge of the hateful attitudes of the people in the middle east and much of the Muslim world, especially as relates to women and gays.
-
You don't even know the process yet, and won't until tomorrow.
Like many conservatives, you're disheartened by the win of PMJT. Conservatives in general have started their attacks on him far to early for most of them to be in any way credible.
What makes you think we'd be in favour of this stupid scheme if the Conservatives were running it? It's a stupid idea no matter who is in charge.
-
And the same soldiers that have been booted out of their place will be assigned to guard those very same premises now housing refugees.
It's all ridiculously wasteful. Why bring people over here at great expense and house them and feed them and cloth them when we could be checking them out much more easily and cheaply back in Turkey or Lebanon? It makes no sense, whatever. For that matter, spending billions to look after a few refugees here instead of giving that money to Turkey or Lebanon to help them look after ten times more is lunacy.
But the lefties have to do it so they can feel good about themselves, I guess. Actually helping isn't as important as putting on a show of how good you are.
-
It's incredibly simplistic to think state policies and social attitudes don't play a role in how well a population integrates into mainstream society.
The UK embraced multiculturalism decades ago and did its best to show utmost respect for differing cultures. That hasn't stopped the race riots or the Muslim rape gangs preying on underage white girls.
-
Quite simply, Canada doesn't have the European culture of xenophobia and outright racism. In short Canada can avoid Europe's problems because Europe's problems are, in part, a result of Europe being Europe.
Unfair. The nordic countries are a very open society and invited refugees from the middle east in and made them at home. Unfortunately, the clash of cultures between free living female nordic girls and harshly conservative Arab men has resulted in a huge increase in rapes across those countries.
-
Two scenarios, they are committing that much crime, or being prosecuted for anything that can be pinned on them.
France is an enlightened democracy, and very left wing. It is one of those countries where you can be arrested for saying something racist to someone. And it has the European Union over them, whose courts can be appealed to, as well as multiple human rights bodies. I would suggest that if 70% of prisoners are Muslims that means Muslims have been committing a lot of crime in France.
-
Harper wanted to take his time and find businessmen and people who spoke English, as well as Christians who are in more danger and are more likely to integrate. But that's out the window now in our frantic rush to grab anyone available to fulfill Trudeau's campaign promise. So here is what we'll be getting by the thousands. Most are not educated, know nothing about Canada, not where it is, not even that it's largely Christian.
Imagine that you were a Syrian day labourer or a cigarette vendor with a wife and six children. Such a person would have lived his life until now by the rules of a deeply conservative patriarchal society that puts family honour above all else and would have been ruled by a dictator before being ruled by his equally ruthless son.
The typical family of the refugees that Canada is considering have mostly lived out in a desert where temperatures dwell in the high forties for months at a time.
Lacking higher education or easily transferable skill sets, and with scant English or French, they will require an immense amount of help and encouragement when they arrive on the other side of the pond. They will be in for a tough slog once they get their parkas, toques and galoshes on. -
And yet Christians the world over still kill other people for 'biblical' reasons.
dozens vs tens of thousands...
-
Regarding the latter, apparently only women, children and families will be accepted by Canada. No single men.
Wasn't the leader of the group that bombed Paris a family man with a daughter?
-
I would suggest that someone who has read the bible "cover to cover many times" might be not be considered a moderate Christian but an "extremist" Christian. I now have a better understanding of your views.
I wonder how many times your average minister or priest has read the bible. I guess they're all 'extremists' in the eyes of some, ironically, in the eyes of those who keep making excuses for extremist Islam.
-
About 10% of the population of France is Muslim. About 70% of the people in French jails are Muslim.
About 12% of the population of America is Black. About 40% of the people in American jails are Black.
Seems a bit disproportionate.
People go to jail proportionate to how much crime they commit.
From what you are posting it seems most of the crime in France is committed by Muslims.
-
This is why the word "bigot" come up. You post the very worse aspects of Sharia law, as if that was the *only* thing Sharia law. I point out that is a lot of latitude and you come back and still insist that "it's all just the same one (bad) thing". That is bigotted thinking.
My brother-in-law does not pay interest on any loans he has outstanding. He had to sign a multi-page marriage contract that protected my sister when they married, including her right to seek divorce and her right to property. He is obligated to care for his wife (or wives if he had more than one), his children, his parents, his family; as the eldest son, this requirement that he take care of younger siblings is taken very seriously. He is obligated to help those less fortunate than he is, regardless of their religion. He is not allowed to force his religion on others, he is not allowed to beat his wife, he is not allowed to harm innocents or non-believers. That all derives from the Sharia law he follows.
Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.
An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
-
How moral is it to take out 20 civilians by accident as collateral damage just to get one suspected terrorist?
You haven't demonstrated that this is the case. All the claims about poor intelligence or targeting are from one study from one journalist, and even its claims are parsed. It might say that more than the target were killed, but who were these others? Were they civilians? If a terrorist leader is taken out in a convoy who is likely to be around him but other terrorists? If a terrorist organizer is taken out in a training camp who are likely to be the other casualties? If a terrorist is taken out during a military campaign where he's trying to conquer a town full of infidels so he can slaughter them aren't those around him likely to be military?
-
The Bible contains many books from different authors from different times over thousands of years. Some of it is simply an account of history, some of it is allegory, some of it is instruction. NONE of it contains any instruction for followers of Christ to act violently towards others. Quite the opposite, Jesus strictly forbade his followers from doing so and he led by example.
Just like Muhammad!
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Are too many people not willing to help in an emergency?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
A terrorist with a knife slashed and stabbed people on a subway in London. A couple of men confronted him, but most just stood around watching or holding up their cameras. A man with a knife is dangerous, but if he is mobbed by a number of people he can probably be brought down pretty easily. When no one is willing to confront him he can do as he wishes. I wonder what it says about all those men who just filmed it instead of trying to help.
The 33-year-old said he and another passenger took on a man to protect passing children and kept up the fight until police arrived.
Mr Pethers, 33, said: ‘There were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones. There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348758/Man-29-charged-attempted-murder-Tube-station-two-men-attacked-man-allegedly-declared-Syria.html