Sandy MacNab Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 You might want to look at the average age of our immigrants, which are now only a couple of years younger than the average age of our existing population. That's not exactly going to reshape our age demographics. Not to mention people who have lived much of their lives in backward nations have a lower life expectancy and will require more costly medical care at a younger age compared to people who grew up in Canada. AND, when they sponsor mommy, daddy, and a bus load of aunts and uncles the age stats and medical system take a further shit-kicking. Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Like having no job skills and being unable to speak, read or understand English? Sounds like you've been dealing with Canada Revenue Agency also. Quote
Shwa Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 AND, when they sponsor mommy, daddy, and a bus load of aunts and uncles the age stats and medical system take a further shit-kicking. What's worse is when they all learn our particular brand of hyperbole to try and fit in with the rest of the hysterical pantywaists that clog every system we know about, especially the Internet. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) What's worse is when they all learn our particular brand of hyperbole to try and fit in with the rest of the hysterical pantywaists that clog every system we know about, especially the Internet. Like Dinesh D'Souza: In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country (such people as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, George Soros, Michael Moore, Bill Moyers, and Noam Chomsky) is responsible for causing 9/11. The term cultural left does not refer to the Democratic Party. Nor does it refer to all liberals. It refers to the left wing of the Democratic Partyadmittedly the most energetic group among Democrats, and the main source of the partys ideas. The cultural left also includes a few Republicans, notably those who adopt a left-wing stance on foreign policy and social issues. Moreover, the cultural left includes organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, and moveon.org. http://dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html (Incidentally, I imagine Noam Chomsky would be surprised to bunched in with the likes of Hillary Clinton...whose worldview and politics are certainly closer to D'Souza's than to his own.) Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure terrorists caused 9/11. Quote
Shwa Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (Incidentally, I imagine Noam Chomsky would be surprised to bunched in with the likes of Hillary Clinton...whose worldview and politics are certainly closer to D'Souza's than to his own.) Well in defence of D'Souza, he did say 'cultural left' as opposed to 'economically left.' By conjuring up this nice, neat term, D'Souza now has a nice, neat category to lump all those culturally progressive characters into, regardless of any of their real world affiliations. It's almost magical! Fiction writers often do this. Tolkien had his Middle Earth; Lewis had Narnia. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Well in defence of D'Souza, he did say 'cultural left' as opposed to 'economically left.' By conjuring up this nice, neat term, D'Souza now has a nice, neat category to lump all those culturally progressive characters into, regardless of any of their real world affiliations. It's almost magical! Fiction writers often do this. Tolkien had his Middle Earth; Lewis had Narnia. Ah, very true. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It may actually be a mistake to assume that the object of growth is to make things better. It is entirely possible that the object is merely to keep them from getting worse. I suppose so, but if so I've yet to see anyone make that case. Instead, they simply announce its good, and demand I prove it's not. What's more, if I happen to come upon research which seems to show it's not, they simply ignore it because they don't like the source of that research -- usually someone like the Frasier Institute. But there is another problem. You seem to be under the assumption that if we stop accepting immigrants we will be okay because our population will not really change that much. But you have completely overlooked the makeup of that population. The important question is not how many people we have, but the ratio of young to old. That's immaterial. The average age of immigrants is basically only a little younger than the average age of Canadian born people. That's because we take in so many immigrants who are older. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Dissenter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 It's accepted by people who haven't bothered to actually look into it. And none of the people, the so-called experts and politicians, who trumpet our immigration system have EVER presented any evidence that shows its good for our economy. I'd actually be interested in seeing such evidence. I have looked for it. I have looked at the statements of politicians and immigration lobbyists and Immigration Canada. None contain any evidence. But for people willing to accept self-serving statements without evidence, I suppose it's all good. Immigrants cost $23B a year http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ But apparently this is somehow going to pay for the retirement of the baby boomer generation so they're willing to sell out future generations.... The goal of any decent parent is to provide a better life for the children. If immigration continues on the current trend, white people will be a minority in the US by 2042 and in Canada around the same time. This means that young white children today will become minorities by the time they're in their mid 30s. I think the people that support this have an obligation to explain how it will make their lives better, and if they cannot, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Of course, when white people defend their own interests, there's always an anti-white around to call it white supremacy. So, let's look at what these words mean. The definition of "white supremacy," according to Webster's dictionary, is: "the belief that the white race is superior and thus should have control over people of other races." By this definition, the argument FOR diversity ONLY in predominantly white countries is based on white supremacy. The argument for it is so that these people can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. The same anti-whites like to argue that everyone should blend together, ONLY in predominantly white countries of course, to eliminate race and thus problems with "racism." This runs in complete contradiction with what they SAY they are for, which is diversity. Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The objective is to eliminate or reduce the population of a specific group of people. It is often associated with killing, but killing is a means not the objective. What anti-whites are for is a white minority in nations where white people are the majority. In reality, what they're for is genocide. Quote Asian countries for Asians. African countries for Africans. White countries for everyone or you are racist! They say they're anti-racist but they're really just anti-white. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Immigrants cost $23B a year http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ But apparently this is somehow going to pay for the retirement of the baby boomer generation so they're willing to sell out future generations.... The goal of any decent parent is to provide a better life for the children. If immigration continues on the current trend, white people will be a minority in the US by 2042 and in Canada around the same time. This means that young white children today will become minorities by the time they're in their mid 30s. I think the people that support this have an obligation to explain how it will make their lives better, and if they cannot, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Of course, when white people defend their own interests, there's always an anti-white around to call it white supremacy. So, let's look at what these words mean. The definition of "white supremacy," according to Webster's dictionary, is: "the belief that the white race is superior and thus should have control over people of other races." By this definition, the argument FOR diversity ONLY in predominantly white countries is based on white supremacy. The argument for it is so that these people can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. The same anti-whites like to argue that everyone should blend together, ONLY in predominantly white countries of course, to eliminate race and thus problems with "racism." This runs in complete contradiction with what they SAY they are for, which is diversity. Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The objective is to eliminate or reduce the population of a specific group of people. It is often associated with killing, but killing is a means not the objective. What anti-whites are for is a white minority in nations where white people are the majority. In reality, what they're for is genocide. Lictor..We get it... You're not fooling anyone.... White people = superor..Everyone else= infeoir... Have figured out the subject matter of the 1903 essay yet? Have you figured out how it ties in to events 4 decades earlier Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
charter.rights Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The objective is to eliminate or reduce the population of a specific group of people. It is often associated with killing, but killing is a means not the objective. Exactly what the Anglo Europeans attempted to do to aboriginal people. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Like Dinesh D'Souza: http://dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html (Incidentally, I imagine Noam Chomsky would be surprised to bunched in with the likes of Hillary Clinton...whose worldview and politics are certainly closer to D'Souza's than to his own.) I have Dinesh D'Souza's "The End of Racism" in hard cover... I don't agree with everything he talks about,however,I agree with his final analysis... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Dissenter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Exactly what the Anglo Europeans attempted to do to aboriginal people. Throughout history people have fought and killed for a variety of reasons - land being one of them - took slaves, etc. This is not unique to white people, but since 1948, international law has stated that conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group is genocide. There is no justification for genocide. Quote Asian countries for Asians. African countries for Africans. White countries for everyone or you are racist! They say they're anti-racist but they're really just anti-white. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
CANADIEN Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Immigrants cost $23B a year http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ But apparently this is somehow going to pay for the retirement of the baby boomer generation so they're willing to sell out future generations.... The goal of any decent parent is to provide a better life for the children. If immigration continues on the current trend, white people will be a minority in the US by 2042 and in Canada around the same time. This means that young white children today will become minorities by the time they're in their mid 30s. I think the people that support this have an obligation to explain how it will make their lives better, and if they cannot, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Of course, when white people defend their own interests, there's always an anti-white around to call it white supremacy. So, let's look at what these words mean. The definition of "white supremacy," according to Webster's dictionary, is: "the belief that the white race is superior and thus should have control over people of other races." By this definition, the argument FOR diversity ONLY in predominantly white countries is based on white supremacy. The argument for it is so that these people can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. The same anti-whites like to argue that everyone should blend together, ONLY in predominantly white countries of course, to eliminate race and thus problems with "racism." This runs in complete contradiction with what they SAY they are for, which is diversity. Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The objective is to eliminate or reduce the population of a specific group of people. It is often associated with killing, but killing is a means not the objective. What anti-whites are for is a white minority in nations where white people are the majority. In reality, what they're for is genocide. Now that I finished laughing (again) at the claim that people who (rightly) do not care about the colour of another person are somehow against people of a certain skin colour (namely white)... Tell me lictor... err I mean Dissenter, when will you reveal your plans in case non-Whites refuse to go along with your white only wet dream. Quote
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Now that I finished laughing (again) at the claim that people who (rightly) do not care about the colour of another person are somehow against people of a certain skin colour (namely white)... Tell me lictor... err I mean Dissenter, when will you reveal your plans in case non-Whites refuse to go along with your white only wet dream. It goes along the lines of deportation back to Africa because he follows the (unfindable) Lincoln Plan.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
CANADIEN Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Throughout history people have fought and killed for a variety of reasons - land being one of them - took slaves, etc. This is not unique to white people, but since 1948, international law has stated that conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group is genocide. There is no justification for genocide. One more reason why your claim of an anti-white genocide are to be taken as they are... a joke. Now tell me Lictor... err I mean Dissenter, what should be done once non-Whites decide not to get alone with your white-only wet dream? Quote
CANADIEN Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) It goes along the lines of deportation back to Africa because he follows the (unfindable) Lincoln Plan.... I am actually more interested to know what his plans are for when the non-Whites refuse to leave. Edited July 23, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote
Dissenter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 One more reason why your claim of an anti-white genocide are to be taken as they are... a joke. Now tell me Lictor... err I mean Dissenter, what should be done once non-Whites decide not to get alone with your white-only wet dream? It's called white flight dumbass. White people are more than willing to do the moving, but immigration and integration is forced on every predominantly white country and community and ONLY predominantly white countries and communities. Marin county California is under pressure to increase its non-white population because it's too white. Detroit is more than 80% black, but nobody DEMANDS that Detroit be more diverse. Quote Asian countries for Asians. African countries for Africans. White countries for everyone or you are racist! They say they're anti-racist but they're really just anti-white. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 I am actually more interested to know what his plans are for when the non-Whites refuse to leave. That would be his undefined "LINCOLN PLAN"... No Evidence to support this... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 Throughout history people have fought and killed for a variety of reasons - land being one of them - took slaves, etc. This is not unique to white people, but since 1948, international law has stated that conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group is genocide. There is no justification for genocide. So...You back the Confederacy and it's specious claims of ethnic supremacy? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Dissenter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) That would be his undefined "LINCOLN PLAN"... No Evidence to support this... No evidence to support the assertion that I am someone I am not either. Edited July 23, 2011 by Dissenter Quote Asian countries for Asians. African countries for Africans. White countries for everyone or you are racist! They say they're anti-racist but they're really just anti-white. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) No evidence to support the assertion that I am someone I am not either. Sure... Edited July 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Dissenter Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) So...You back the Confederacy and it's specious claims of ethnic supremacy? I believe that white people have as much right to exist as blacks or Asians. Anti-whites call this supremacy. There are more than fifty predominantly black countries in the world. Black people have the second largest continent in the world that's rich in resources - Africa. Africa has weather that allows for farming year around. They also have nations that they are not indigenous to, but nobody demands that they be more diverse because of that, or go back to Africa. Jamaicans are proud of the black ethnic identity of their nation, but nobody calls this racist. Yet black people rather live as minorities in predominantly white countries, where the weather drops well below zero, and we are a minority. Jews insist that Israel be recognized as a "Jewish state." If you were consistent, you'd call this Jewish supremacy, for which you'd be called an anti-semite. Edited July 23, 2011 by Dissenter Quote Asian countries for Asians. African countries for Africans. White countries for everyone or you are racist! They say they're anti-racist but they're really just anti-white. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
eyeball Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 The goal of any decent parent is to provide a better life for the children. If immigration continues on the current trend, white people will be a minority in the US by 2042 and in Canada around the same time. This means that young white children today will become minorities by the time they're in their mid 30s. I think the people that support this have an obligation to explain how it will make their lives better, and if they cannot, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. My first grandchild's father is Chinese and I'm proud as punch. Speaking of decent parents, apparently there was something wrong with your's. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Jack Weber Posted July 23, 2011 Report Posted July 23, 2011 I believe that white people have as much right to exist as blacks or Asians. Anti-whites call this supremacy. There are more than fifty predominantly black countries in the world. Black people have the second largest continent in the world that's rich in resources - Africa. Africa has weather that allows for farming year around. They also have nations that they are not indigenous to, but nobody demands that they be more diverse because of that, or go back to Africa. Jamaicans are proud of the black ethnic identity of their nation, but nobody calls this racist. Yet black people rather live as minorities in predominantly white countries, where the weather drops well below zero, and we are a minority. Jews insist that Israel be recognized as a "Jewish state." If you were consistent, you'd call this Jewish supremacy, for which you'd be called an anti-semite. Whatever,Lictor... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.