Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Don't we 'punish' kids every time their parents immigration or refugee claim is rejected? If someone flies into Canada just to have their baby, then returns home, are we 'punishing' the kid by refusing to grant it citizenship?

These have nothing to do with what I asked you. If you don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on just say so and stop deflecting.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

  • Replies 900
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Statistics show people from the middle east, northern Africa and western Asia perform very poorly in Canada anyway in economic terms.

Making decisions about individuals based on group statistics is associated with leftist attitudes, and programs such as Affirmative Action. Do you generally believe in this principle, because it could take you into some strange places.

Posted

These have nothing to do with what I asked you. If you don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on just say so and stop deflecting.

Morality has nothing to do with these sorts of decisions. Either we allow everyone to come here, and turn the place into a shithole like most of the rest of the world, which is what Michael H wants, or we establish restrictive rules for who comes here based on who is going to make the best contribution to our society and economy. Given that people who come here, then pick up and go home again within a few years contribute nothing to our society but bills, I see no moral issues involved in cancelling their immigration and citizenship.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Making decisions about individuals based on group statistics is associated with leftist attitudes, and programs such as Affirmative Action. Do you generally believe in this principle, because it could take you into some strange places.

That's a pretty far stretch. We make decisions based on 'group' statistics all the time in all manner of ways from health care to economic incentives. We make those decisions in our own private lives every day with regard to goods from manufacturers whose products tend to fail more often than others. I see no reason with taking that into the sphere of immigration.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Some people here transfer one woman wanting to wear a scarf over her face to the dismissal and condemnation of a billion people.

Imagine that leap.

Science too hard for you? Try religion!

Posted

When those billion people start standing up to the hijackers of their religion, then maybe they will get some slack.

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted

When those billion people start standing up to the hijackers of their religion, then maybe they will get some slack.

Ok cool.

You obviously then have protested and offered your apologies to and for ....

A- internment of the Japanese here in Canada.

B- treatment of First Nations and stealing

C- residential schools

D- Catholic pervert priests

In case you havent, why not? Why are you such a horrible person for being a white Canadian. I do hope the folks around you arent really mean all day to you but let you know how bad your kind really is.

Posted (edited)

I think when the discussion devolves down into comments such as piss ant or the like, its time to hit the ignore button.

Yes, and "shut up" is so much more conducive to meaningful dialogue. (sarcasm indicated here, just so you know you haven't been Poe;d)

You don't like piss ant, so let's call him what he is...a murdering thug of a terrorist who comes from a family of terrorist thugs. And no, it's not my fault that they are terrorists. Nor other Canadians. So shut it with that.

Edited by drummindiver
Posted

Ok cool.

You obviously then have protested and offered your apologies to and for ....

A- internment of the Japanese here in Canada.

B- treatment of First Nations and stealing

C- residential schools

D- Catholic pervert priests

In case you havent, why not? Why are you such a horrible person for being a white Canadian. I do hope the folks around you arent really mean all day to you but let you know how bad your kind really is.

Glad there's no thread drift here. (more sarcasm indicated).

Posted (edited)

He admitted guilt, so please, stop saying he was falsely accused.

I asked you what you would do if you were falsely accused.

All he did was tell a phony court conducting a phony trial what it wanted to hear.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Hes already spent life in prison. He was 15 years old. His country was invaded. The scum here is....you know who

His country was invaded? I thought he was Canadian? Oh wait, he is Canadian. Canada was invaded? Really?

(jfc, and you insinuate other people don't know what the eff is going on)

Posted

I asked you what you would do if you were falsely accused.

All he did was tell a phony court conducting a phony trial what it wanted to hear.

Again, he is a confessed, convicted murderer.

Every murderer says they are innocent. All lefties believe them.

That's why they are always allowed back out on the street to repeat.

What are his chances of recidivism? Pretty damn good I'd guess.

Posted (edited)

Ok cool.

You obviously then have protested and offered your apologies to and for ....

A- internment of the Japanese here in Canada.

B- treatment of First Nations and stealing

C- residential schools

D- Catholic pervert priests

In case you havent, why not? Why are you such a horrible person for being a white Canadian. I do hope the folks around you arent really mean all day to you but let you know how bad your kind really is.

Given we weren't alive during any of that, other than the Catholic priests, I don't think the suggestion is exactly fair.

As for Catholic 'pervert priests' from what I understand their numbers are no greater than in the general population. That might not be much to brag about if you're a priest, buti it's hardly a reason for wholesale condemnation - which, btw, has taken place for years now, anyway.

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I asked you what you would do if you were falsely accused.

All he did was tell a phony court conducting a phony trial what it wanted to hear.

Must be true, because he was only there to sell Boy Scout cookies from Canada.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Morality has nothing to do with these sorts of decisions. Either we allow everyone to come here, and turn the place into a shithole like most of the rest of the world, which is what Michael H wants, or we establish restrictive rules for who comes here based on who is going to make the best contribution to our society and economy. Given that people who come here, then pick up and go home again within a few years contribute nothing to our society but bills, I see no moral issues involved in cancelling their immigration and citizenship.

This still has nothing to do with punishing Canadian children for having been deliberately radicalized and indoctrinated into being a soldier/terrorist/combatant/whatever.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

This still has nothing to do with punishing Canadian children for having been deliberately radicalized and indoctrinated into being a soldier/terrorist/combatant/whatever.

Then your suggestion is to allow indoctrination and radicalization with out reproach. Can't penalize the parents for what the kids do (except in Canada, of course, if your kid breaks a window the parents are liable. You know, responsible. So why not parents who indoctrinate violent ideology?)

And of course, we can't punish the perpetrators, as it isn't their fault. It's their parents'. Who we can't penalize.

Oy vei.

Posted

Morality has nothing to do with these sorts of decisions. Either we allow everyone to come here, and turn the place into a shithole like most of the rest of the world, which is what Michael H wants, or we establish restrictive rules for who comes here based on who is going to make the best contribution to our society and economy. Given that people who come here, then pick up and go home again within a few years contribute nothing to our society but bills, I see no moral issues involved in cancelling their immigration and citizenship.

We already have a restrictive set of rules for who comes here, Iv looked but havent seen any real evidence of a problem with Canadas muslim immigrants, and in general their children should be fairly well integrated and productive.

Dont worry... give it some time and these folks will be eating Baconators at Wendys drinking crappy Canadian beer, and watching bad television like the rest of us.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

Again, he is a confessed, convicted murderer.

Every murderer says they are innocent. All lefties believe them.

So you're saying I shouldn't believe the confession of a liar?

Okay.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted (edited)

Then your suggestion is to allow indoctrination and radicalization with out reproach.

No it's not.

Can't penalize the parents for what the kids do (except in Canada, of course, if your kid breaks a window the parents are liable. You know, responsible. So why not parents who indoctrinate violent ideology?)

Damn good question, one I've asked many of your ilk.

And of course, we can't punish the perpetrators, as it isn't their fault. It's their parents'. Who we can't penalize.

Oy vei.

The reason we can't charge Omar Khadr's mother with illegally indoctrinating her son into being a soldier is that doing so changes the entire narrative constructed around how the GWOT is being conducted. If Omar was a soldier then he was a POW and if he was a POW then so were all the other captives in GITMO. A lot of political capital is invested in claiming otherwise.

Oy vey indeed.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Can't penalize the parents for what the kids do (except in Canada, of course, if your kid breaks a window the parents are liable.

No they arent.

But most people would know that, then again, most people know about coercive guilty pleas.

Smart people really.

Sorry you dont.

Posted

So anyone have any ideas on why the Crown can't charge Khadr's mother with radicalization?

My guess is that doing so would imply her son is a victim.

Oy vey?

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Given we weren't alive during any of that, other than the Catholic priests, I don't think the suggestion is exactly fair.

The point is counter to pik's ridiculous assertion.

No one can blame the all for the actions of a few.

Posted

Then your suggestion is to allow indoctrination and radicalization with out reproach. Can't penalize the parents for what the kids do (except in Canada, of course, if your kid breaks a window the parents are liable. You know, responsible. So why not parents who indoctrinate violent ideology?)

And of course, we can't punish the perpetrators, as it isn't their fault. It's their parents'. Who we can't penalize.

Oy vei.

Canadian parents can only be penalized for the civil aspects of criminal activity (the damages to the window). Or if they directly incite or encourage violence they can and should be charged for that.

However... if the parents were simply telling him that he should go to Afghanistan and help resist its invasion and occupation by foreigners, then meh... who cares.

Either way the alledged crime he commited was in Afghanistan... If they want him, then we should just extradite him, provided we recieve assurances he will be properly treated.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

Either way the alledged crime he commited was in Afghanistan... If they want him, then we should just extradite him, provided we recieve assurances he will be properly treated.

Cant.

We do not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan .

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,834
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    maria orsic
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Radiorum earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Politics1990 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Majikman earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Majikman earned a badge
      First Post
    • Majikman earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...