eyeball Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 That's an ironic statement considering the topic. I support the right of people to wear whatever they want, but to argue that people wear this with any legitimate desire is very dishonest. But I don't really care if they wear it. On the other hand, I can see why people oppose it, in this particular instance.Sure it's easy to see the opposition but the reasons given to oppose it deserve nothing but contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 We don't preach face coverings and if she is willing to do it in front of people in another room, then she can do with the others. But really most support for her is because harper is the one changing the rules. if trudeau did it we would hear nothing about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 We don't preach face coveringsLOL....'we' dont ? I wore one almost all day Sat and Sun. Lots of others did too. But really most support for her is because harper is the one changing the rules. if trudeau did it we would hear nothing about it.Trudeau likely wouldnt be so stupid....so...I guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 We don't preach face coverings and if she is willing to do it in front of people in another room, then she can do with the others. But really most support for her is because harper is the one changing the rules. if trudeau did it we would hear nothing about it. Now there is a strawman if ever Ive heard one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 We don't preach face coverings and if she is willing to do it in front of people in another room, then she can do with the others. But really most support for her is because harper is the one changing the rules. if trudeau did it we would hear nothing about it. I am a Harper supporter and think she is right and he is wrong in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Nobody asked her to come and nobody is asking her to stay, we do not need people with that attitude coming here and demand that we bend to her will. This is right up there with immigrants coming to this country (Quebec) and then running for a separatist group. I guess it is a well proven facts that canadians have no balls and will not stand up for its self. It is disgusting, might as well make the citizenship a prize for the cracker jack boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Nobody asked her to come and nobody is asking her to stay, we do not need people with that attitude coming here and demand that we bend to her will. Actually, the constitution is already set up to accommodate religions such as Christianity. It's more that people aren't willing to bend the constitution to discriminate against Muslims only. That seems pretty unCanadian to me. I guess it is a well proven facts that canadians have no balls and will not stand up for its self. Besides the bad grammar, and not capitalizing the word 'Canadian' you seem to have disdain for this country. Immigrants are proud to come to a place that allows people of all religions and races to prosper and live together. I don't know what kind of country you want, but it's not Canada. Your complaints are thus very confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I am a Harper supporter and think she is right and he is wrong in this case. You are NOT a Harper supporter, just a dishonest Liberal who likes to troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I agree, but again that is not an issue in this circumstance. It has been agreed that this person has already identified herself to the satisfaction of citizenship authorities. All the paperwork and certification of identity is done. She has already 'earned ' citizenship in every way that matters. She has stated she will cheerfully take the oath. If it was an issue of confirming her identity I would agree `100%. It isn't. Yeah I read the article. I get that. Regardless of whether or not someone has confirmed the person's identity in a closed room, it's still not unreasonable to expect someone to say an oath with their face uncovered. Sure, one or two people may have seen the person's face in a closed room, but there's something to be said about hearing an oath and being able to look a person in the face. Looking someone in the face is just about the most fundamental measure of trustworthiness there is. When you really get to the heart of the matter, the most unreasonable position of all is that of a person who refuses to show their face at a citizenship ceremony. Putting together a rational explanation for that is just about impossible, it being little more than "Waah, culture, blah blah religion." The more detail you get into on the subject, the more unreasonable and silly it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Lets take the first part. You show up to vote, no ID. Well? I show up to vote with my ID. Nobody has to vouch for me. I believe it should be mandatory. Somene has to vouch for you, it was acceptable yesterday, ten years ago five years ago...but now its worrisome? Why? Not showing your face isn't acceptable much of anywhere for +99% of the population. 'Vouching' doesn't usually cut it either. That counts for very little most places. Except there was never any concern before as relates to'Confirming identity is an extremely important part of operating a fair and safe society." There was and still is. What are you talking about? Do schoolkids/bikers/halloween/adults out icefishing/walking in winter make you suspicious? If they wanted to do serious business with me, absolutely. I'd certainly not sign a contract with someone I just met who was wearing a pumpkin mask. I wouldn't be surprised if you did though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 You are NOT a Harper supporter, just a dishonest Liberal who likes to troll. How many wild assumptions do you make in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Looking someone in the face is just about the most fundamental measure of trustworthiness there is.Im blind ! Now what? When you really get to the heart of the matter, the most unreasonable position of all is that of a person who refuses to show their face at a citizenship ceremony.So they have been pre-screened, vetted, confirmed, every official who counts knows who this is.....but somehow they magically become shady when the veil is on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I show up to vote with my ID. Nobody has to vouch for me. I believe it should be mandatory.Ok. Not showing your face isn't acceptable much of anywhere for +99% of the population. 'Vouching' doesn't usually cut it either. That counts for very little most places.Except for the 95% of the country that does? Schoolyards in winter, trails when winter hits, riding bikes/snomobiles, waiting for the bus, halloween, Quebec order of Nuns, heavy bearded guys (and women-no sexism pls).... There was and still is. What are you talking about?Vouching, been going on for longer than we have been walking. If they wanted to do serious business with me, absolutely. I'd certainly not sign a contract with someone I just met who was wearing a pumpkin mask.Oh you mean in the privacy of your own home ? Ok, your house your rules. I wouldn't be surprised if you did though!Im still blind . Now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Micheal. open your eyes to what is going on around the woRld and this notion that this country has to bring in everybody no matter what damage it can do is pure liberal BS. Nothing to do with Canada. Our ancesters came here to get away from the crap and now we are bringing it here. If people would leave their baggage at home ,fine ,but that is not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Micheal. open your eyes to what is going on around the woRld and this notion that this country has to bring in everybody no matter what damage it can do is pure liberal BS. Nothing to do with Canada. Our ancesters came here to get away from the crap and now we are bringing it here. If people would leave their baggage at home ,fine ,but that is not happening.You do know, whether factual or not vis-a-vis the damage caused, that the one bringing them here is your beloved Conservative govt. Why they own the lable of.... Most Immigrants Ever ! Now I am a little unsure, as you are obviously, if the Conservatives are hiding in liberal clothing. Too funny. And of course our ancestors brought tons fo stuff (crap?) with them to this fair land. Every single wave of immigrants (even the ones you like) came with baggage that in the ensuing years became the norm, accepted ways of life in this country. Sadly though,some of the children of these migrants grew up xenophobic worry warts who are scared of a veil and hide under their bed a lot Edited February 20, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 You do know, whether factual or not vis-a-vis the damage caused, that the one bringing them here is your beloved Conservative govt. Why they own the lable of.... Most Immigrants Ever ! Now I am a little unsure, as you are obviously, if the Conservatives are hiding in liberal clothing. Too funny. And of course our ancestors brought tons fo stuff (crap?) with them to this fair land. Every single wave of immigrants (even the ones you like) came with baggage that in the ensuing years became the norm, accepted ways of life in this country. Sadly though,some of the children of these migrants grew up xenophobic worry warts who are scared of a veil and hide under their bed a lot One need only look back to residential schools to see some of the crap that was brought here, but I dont hear anyone bitching about Catholics coming here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Micheal. open your eyes to what is going on around the woRld and this notion that this country has to bring in everybody no matter what damage it can do is pure liberal BS. You should speak to our economist PM as to why negative population growth is a good idea. Our ancestors (Americans really) established religious freedom and now you think you're better than that, apparently. Constitutional change to eliminate freedom of religion is what's not happening, unless you can explain to me how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 You should speak to our economist PM as to why negative population growth is a good idea. Eliminating immigration would not lead to negative population growth for decades. Lowering it to more sustainable levels would not lead to negative population growth at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 You should speak to our economist PM as to why negative population growth is a good idea. What does that mean?....immigration is at all time highs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 What does that mean?....immigration is at all time highs. Exactly, but this other poster seems to think that Harper has it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Eliminating immigration would not lead to negative population growth for decades. Lowering it to more sustainable levels would not lead to negative population growth at all. I haven't seen that one before - cite ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Oh you mean in the privacy of your own home ? Ok, your house your rules. No, I mean anywhere. Nobody does business in Halloween masks. Go to a bank wearing a Frankenstein mask and ask for a loan. Tell us how that goes, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Im blind ! You're at a serious disadvantage. Any other questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 It's offensive to Canadians that men should tell women how they should dress and Stephan Harper says take off that veil. Welcome to Canada Bizzaro World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Exactly, but this other poster seems to think that Harper has it wrong. Do you really want to resurrect the same old discussion? You must or you wouldn't have brought this up. Very well then. Our immigration levels were tripled by Brian Mulroney. During the discussion which preceded the decision, the Economic Council of Canada, which was asked to examine the proposal, said there was no economic case to be made for it, and so if immigration was to be tripled, it would have to be done on the basis of other reasons. We know from reports of cabinet discussions that the other big reason was made by then immigration minister Barbara McDougal, who convincingly made the case that all those new immigrants would boost the Tories election fortunes, as new immigrants tend to vote for the party in power when they entered Canada. This, then, is the background for what has become a sacred cow to the Left - that these massive immigration numbers must be continued at all costs and regardless of what our unemployment or economic situation is. There is no economic, demographic or social case to be made for the Left's assumptions about why we take in so many immigrants each year, just bland, general statements by the government. But the government itself has never actually supported the numbers of immigrants with any demographic, social or economic case, remember. Nor did they do so this year when they announced they were increasing immigration again - in an election year. Nevertheless, if you question the numbers or types of immigrants you can count on at least several ignorant, braying asses of the Left to start screaming names at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.