ReeferMadness Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 He is right that all the parties do it. Listening to election ads and speeches is like a crash course in every possible logical fallacy there is. The other parties are pandering to racists too? Maybe I haven't been following closely enough. Do you have examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Not at all. It's just that certain things have to be done without your face covered. Citizenship, drivers licences, appearances in court, etc. it's just common sense. At least to the vast majority of Canadians. Nice strawman, Shady. Nobody said they don't have to be identified to get their citizenship. Try to keep up with the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Reefer if you are ignorant of who Trudeau panders to in certain communities, specifically certain fundamentalist extremists in the Muslim community go educate yourself. I am not here to spoon feed you. To claim you are ignorant of it is wilful if you can't be bothered to do your homework. Likewise with Mulcair. You think he doesn't play to certain Quebecois separatist sentiments with code words about certain groups. For phack's sake he all but spit it out during the last two debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Reefer if you are ignorant of who Trudeau panders to in certain communities, specifically certain fundamentalist extremists in the Muslim community Fear mongering conspiracy theory hyperbole garbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Reefer if you are ignorant of who Trudeau panders to in certain communities, specifically certain fundamentalist extremists in the Muslim community go educate yourself That is a fascinating claim. Care to elaborate where Trudeau has pandered to extremists in the Muslim community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 And what precisely is the CPC philosophy? Frankly, their platform is every bit as confused as the others, and just as full of populist garbage. Low taxes and more money in my pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Low taxes and more money in my pocket. So their philosophy is buying the votes of people like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 So their philosophy is buying the votes of people like you. Right. But what's the point you are trying to make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Right. But what's the point you are trying to make? The point I'm trying to make is that there are other issues behind marginal tax cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 The point I'm trying to make is that there are other issues behind marginal tax cuts. I was saying that to ME there are no other issues I care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 I was saying that to ME there are no other issues I care about. Obviously there are, because you seem to trumpet every single Tory talking point, many of which have nothing to do with taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Every time Harper does something disgraceful, you guys run around and look for an example of something someone else did - To show what hypocrites the Harper haters are, who ignored it all the other times it was done, but now are hysterical about him doing the same thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 To show what hypocrites the Harper haters are, who ignored it all the other times it was done, but now are hysterical about him doing the same thing... Because you find it easier to have Harper run against Chretien or Pierre Trudeau than the current people. Why stop there? Maybe you should just compare John A McDonald against Laurier. I don't spend my time on what Chretien did because he's gone. Get over it. I still see that you are incapable of defending Harper so you need to continue pathetic efforts to blame someone who came before him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) A quick test for those who are following the racist dialogue being spouted here: The following are statements by various individuals. Some are by our resident racist, some by David Duke and one by Adolph Hitler at Adolf Hitler’s Speech at the 1927 Nuremberg Rally. I don't call myself a white supremacist. I'm a civil rights activist concerned about European-American rights. I want to live in a nation that reflects my traditions and values, and I do not want my people to become a minority in the nations my own forefathers built. No man whose wife wears a niqab should even be considered for Canadian citizenship. They will never adapt to Canada's culture and will do their level best to ensure their children never do either. I favour Europeans not because they're skin has less pigmentation but because they are more culturally adaptable to our own culture, have much the same values, are likely to speak English much better, and will have education and skill sets more immediately applicable to our economy. A people that has the best blood but does not understand it, squandering it, receives no protection from its intrinsic value. And the purity of blood means nothing if the nation can be persuaded of the absurdity that its blood is worthless. I really don't understand why we would let such people come here, let alone gain citizenship. There are probably millions of Europeans who would be delighted to come here, given the economic situation in many countries there. Instead we bring in faceless sacks of cloth? If you had difficulty in differentiating between them then you are getting the message. Edited October 4, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Hey, my position from the start has been that neither men nor women who believe in this should be allowed into Canada. Well, to be perfectly honest I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep if we stripped religious conservatives of their citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron Young Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Such an easy fix. We live in a society that is on the forefront of the technology revolution. If a person wants to become a Canadian citizen while wearing a Niqab it couldn't be any easier to accommodate them. We have security screening measures that will totally eliminate any concerns people may have about terrorists or other undesirables becoming citizens. Retinal scans, fingerprint ID to name just two. But then again it wouldn't be such a polarizing issue then would it? This is fear monger political maneuvering at its worst. Why on earth are the Liberals and NDP even engaging with the Harperoids on this issue? If they simply offer up the solution then the sheeple have no where to go with this issue and it dies as it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 You think this started with an Aussie? Is he the guy who convinced the PQ, then the Quebec Liberals to ban the niquab in all government buildings?You 'progressives' certainly do seem to have poor memories, though, in how shocked and appalled you are at this. It was only five years ago the Ontario Liberals did exactly the same thing. The Conservatives had suggested funding schools of other religions to equalize the fact the province funds Catholic schools.You know what the Liberal Party did? They ran a huge scare campaign which suggested the government would be funding Muslim madrasas that teach children extremism and hatred. They were completely unrepentant about it, too, and it was a huge help in winning them the election. The PC party's big mistake in Ontario was to promote equality under the law for all religious communities, and they paid the price at the polls. The Green Party of Ontario paid the same price for the same reason. The Liberal Party of Ontario was most adamant about defending the separate school system but only for Catholics and Protestants and were rewarded accordingly. The NDP which also passively supported the same by keeping mum on the matter was also rewarded for not challenging this discriminatory status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Well, to be perfectly honest I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep if we stripped religious conservatives of their citizenship. And I wouldn't lose much sleep if we stripped non-taxpayers of their voting rights. If you're getting a free ride you shouldn't be able to dictate to the guy paying the freight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 And I wouldn't lose much sleep if we stripped non-taxpayers of their voting rights. If you're getting a free ride you shouldn't be able to dictate to the guy paying the freight. And I'd be happy if people would stop thinking disenfranchising people in a liberal democracy was in the tiniest degree supportable. We are guaranteed a universal franchise regardless of income level or religious affiliation, full stop. The principle that those who are affected by an assembly's legislation should have a voice in that legislature is the cornerstone of modern democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 The PC party's big mistake in Ontario was to promote equality under the law for all religious communities, and they paid the price at the polls. The Green Party of Ontario paid the same price for the same reason. The Liberal Party of Ontario was most adamant about defending the separate school system but only for Catholics and Protestants and were rewarded accordingly. The NDP which also passively supported the same by keeping mum on the matter was also rewarded for not challenging this discriminatory status quo. No the PC party's big mistake (provincially) was sticking it to the federal party's PC support. Also, their other mistake? They were too honest when it came to cutting public sector jobs. Hudak was a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 And I'd be happy if people would stop thinking disenfranchising people in a liberal democracy was in the tiniest degree supportable. We are guaranteed a universal franchise regardless of income level or religious affiliation, full stop. The principle that those who are affected by an assembly's legislation should have a voice in that legislature is the cornerstone of modern democracy. There are some bright lights who believe that those that make the money should have more say than those who don't. I have a wonderful idea for them. Create the baseline where it is to-day - everybody qualified gets one vote - BUT - since those making the dough "should" have a greater say then assign additional votes according to income in $100,000 increments. So if you make $120,000 a year then you get 2 votes - 1 guaranteed and 1 because your income is in between $100,000 and $200,000. If you make $210,000 a year then you get 3 votes - 1 guaranteed a 2 because your income is in between $200,000 and $300,000. Canadian Gerald W. Schwarz of ONEX Corporation ($88 million/year) would be entitled to 881 votes. Even the 79th Canadian on the income list, M.H. McCain of Maple Leaf Foods ($5.2 million) would be entitled to 53 votes. I assume that makes sense to those bright lights. We know that these paragons of social justice will make sure that all aspects of society will be represented in the people they support in parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 There are some bright lights who believe that those that make the money should have more say than those who don't. I have a wonderful idea for them. Create the baseline where it is to-day - everybody qualified gets one vote - BUT - since those making the dough "should" have a greater say then assign additional votes according to income in $100,000 increments. So if you make $120,000 a year then you get 2 votes - 1 guaranteed and 1 because your income is in between $100,000 and $200,000. If you make $210,000 a year then you get 3 votes - 1 guaranteed a 2 because your income is in between $200,000 and $300,000. Canadian Gerald W. Schwarz of ONEX Corporation ($88 million/year) would be entitled to 881 votes. Even the 79th Canadian on the income list, M.H. McCain of Maple Leaf Foods ($5.2 million) would be entitled to 53 votes. I assume that makes sense to those bright lights. We know that these paragons of social justice will make sure that all aspects of society will be represented in the people they support in parliament. LOVE IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 There are approximately 100 women a year who attend this ceremony that wear the Niqab. This ruling sends a wrong message to these women. How many of these 100 women wear the niqab voluntarily. We don't know but I would guess that most of them don't. Now the government has announced to them that it's ok to wear the Niqab even though this is a very strong symbolism of female suppression. The very opportunity where they could have gone without wearing it, in defiance of their husbands, Canada has just taken it away. Canada should be doing everything they can to discourage the Niqab and what it represents. It's a powerful symbolism for oppression of women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Canada should be doing everything they can to discourage the Niqab and what it represents. It's a powerful symbolism for oppression of women. I disagree. Governments should stay away from garment restrictions. If we go down this path then I can see a future PM Tony Clement or someone of his ilk mandating miniskirts. Women should decide how they want to present themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 ... Canada should be doing everything they can to discourage the Niqab and what it represents. It's a powerful symbolism for oppression of women. I understand that to you, the Niqab is a powerful symbolism for the oppression of women. For many women, the Niqab is a powerful symbolism for the symbol of women's rights. Why do you expect people to understand your particular view of a symbol if you will not accept others view of the same symbol? What makes your view more valid than others. I do not view the Niqab as a symbol of anything. It does not bother me. Nun's in habits and guys with long hair and beards do not bother me. People walking around with all kinds of metals stuck through their eyebrows, cheeks, lips, earlobes and other private parts of the autonomy (I've been told) bother me a little and make me cringe. Why should the Canadian government do something to please your interpretation of a symbol if it does not bother me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.