.

Rue · September 9, 2015

Reefer you need to read what you quote from Dwyer He compared the Hussen model of government to East European governments under the Soviet Empire.That was his contextual reference to socialism. You then stopped at the word socialism and say, ah then, Hussein was socialist.

The contextual reference reference to East European socialism does not mean he said Iraq was actually socialist. Zip over your head.

The NDP refers to itself as socialist. So does the Labour party of Britain. Are they the same as the models of government you saw in East Europe..well..you think they are all socialist-you just toss that word out and its a one size fits all definition....

The word socialist in the context in which Dwyer described it refers to Stalinism. Hussein modelled his government and rule after Stalin.

True socialism probably has never existed in any government let alone East European Soviet satellite states. The closest example to it is where a country is agrarian and distributes its activity through networks called coops.

I do not have time to explain what a collective economy is but if you think East Germany or Russia or Poland in the cold war days were socialist good for you. I mean after all they called themselves socialist republics so in your world they must be. In my world they were in fact totalitarian regimes where the central government controlled all activities and did not distribute the wealth evenly so they were anything but socialist.

In fact I totally agree with Dwyer and he and others have stated Hussein modelled himself on Stalin and Stalinism. If you think that was socialism and a government of the people, good for you. It was not and before you claim to talk about Iraq do better then to cherry pick a sentence out of its actual context and trot out Dwyer as your authority-he is not. He never claimed what you are inferring he claimed. in fact he wrote in great detail about the Stalin influence on Hussein and its failure to bring a true socialist revolution to Iraq. Sorry to burst your bubble Hussein was no Che Guevera socialist revolutionary rising against the imperialist forces of capitalism. He was a sociopath, a fascist, and ruled by installing a police state that kept control of the masses through elite cliques.

It was no socialist utopia.

Wait next you want to tell me that Stalin was socialist. Yah I got it. That starvation he imposed in Ukraine was socialist. Yes sir. He spread it equally.

Hussein was a brutal dictator. He ran a police state. He did not distribute the wealth. There were no collective farms, coops. Instead of giggling and thinking one quote from Dwyer proves your point you will have to do better then that but hey keep giggling.

Next, nothing in the quotes you provided from Clark state we have sufficient security screening in place to detect terrorists. You in fact proved my point. He never said we did. You infer that from his words.That was the point I made and you now have proven for me. Thank you.

Next, no I can not deport fundamentalist Christians or Jews for that matter born in Canada and are Canadian citizens but I can challenge them of course and I do and we have debates on abortion, sex education. Your point...did you have one..

If you want to bring with you and demand accommodation for 4 wives, teach your children homosexuals are evil, teaching sex is wrong, yes you are damn right I want it understood I find your views intolerant, exclusive and problematic. That is the point.

Once bigoted fundamentalists step forth on Canadian soil its too late to say, go-they have the right to be bigots and demand exclusivity and not be deported-clearly a point you again do not fathom.

Rigid beliefs that do not lend to assimilation are the issue. You arguing bigotry is acceptable because people other than Muslims are bigoted is not just illogical but ridiculous. Arguing because others are idiots makes idiocy a good thing is idiotic.

In your world we should be tolerant of the intolerant and accommodate intolerance. How righteous of you to welcome the unrighteous and rejoice in your ability to accommodate their intolerance-...excuse me if I puke.....

Edited September 9, 2015 by Rue

Civis Romanus sum · September 9, 2015

You continue to bolster my previous point.

The only point you seem to be good at bolstering is your almost complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

Civis Romanus sum · September 9, 2015

Sorry,m my quote button isn't working.

I don't know if Muslim men are more prone to acts of violence against women.

The entire culture is based on hate and fear of women, and controlling them through violence. Why would they NOT be more prone to acts of violence against women?

cybercoma · September 9, 2015

Reported to day on the radio ,it seems most of the migrants are young able bodies men. They are not refugees, but illegals.

Refugees can't be young men?

Civis Romanus sum · September 9, 2015

If every EU country plus Canada, the US and Australia each took in refugees at a rate of 0.5% of their respective populations there would be no crisis...

In the news this morning, the German offer of asylum has 'resonated' in Iraq, even the parts of Iraq which are facing no threat from ISIS and a new wave of migrants are heading towards Turkey to make the trip to Europe...

Civis Romanus sum · September 9, 2015

You know people don't just up and decide to be refugees, right? You make it sound like taking in refugees encourages people to become refugees. That's not how any of this works.

Of course that's how it works! That's how it's working now!

If the first 'boat people' who landed in Greece had all been shot there would have been no more coming, and in fact, that would have saved thousands of lives of those who drowned at sea.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

Civis Romanus sum · September 9, 2015

Actually, it's not an ad hominem if the person's character actually has something to do with the topic they're discussing. For instance, you saying an immigration lawyer might have an interest in increasing immigration or waldo saying that racist nationalists may have an interest in keeping them out.

And to the likes of you everyone who disagrees with you is a racist nationalist, isn't that right?

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

I've got 100$ that says almost all of these men are very conservative in their stance towards the world and people that view it differently than themselves. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, the vast VAST majority of Muslim men that insist on being sphincters towards women, gays and just about anyone but their own ilk are as conservative as the day is long.

Religion and culture have f... all to do with it. Sure, religion still makes everything worse but conservatism is what really makes things godawful - the most obvious universal trait in everything awful that is attributed to Muslim men and Islam is conservatism. Not culture or religion or anything else, conservatism....the bane of human existence virtually everywhere. Even in communist countries.

lol

no, religion and culture is what makes everything godawful The conservative aspect of this is they propagate their religion and culture.

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

They are mistakenly using their religion and usually in remote communities where there is a lack of literate Muslim leaders to educate them on the Quran. So yes conservatism is very much a part of these isolated communities.

What?

Now your are accusing them of not being able to read or spread their religion, or mistakenly using religion?

Ok, you got me on the mistakenly using part.

Lot less murder and mayhem if more of them couldn't understand the Qu'ran

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

No, its the other way around and the religion is being driven by conservatism. Normally conservatism is a healthy aspect and influence in every human society and culture. The problem is when it morphs from being a mere influence to an organizing force that conservatism becomes such a dangerous thing. As it's increasingly becoming in societies around the planet.

No, religion and culture drives conservatism.

conservatism is healthy when religion and culture is healthy.

Clearly, Muslim religion and culture is not healthy.

Well, for, you know, women, gays, infidels, non-believers, apostates....ppl like that

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

Refugees can't be young men?

Of course they can.

When 75% of them are young, fighting age men, you do have to wonder where the women and children are though, don't you?

Seriously, can you agree to this very obvious, and I'll be kind, anomaly?

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

Actually, it's not an ad hominem if the person's character actually has something to do with the topic they're discussing. For instance, you saying an immigration lawyer might have an interest in increasing immigration or waldo saying that racist nationalists may have an interest in keeping them out?

Clearly, ad hom.

Clearly inaccurate.

Clearly drivel from the left.

Where have we heard this racist crap before whenever someone doesn't agree with the left agenda?

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

You forgot the talking point about them having cell phones.

lol

Hard to take refugees seriously when they have something I don't have.

cybercoma · September 9, 2015

Of course that's how it works! That's how it's working now!

Why don't we have many refugees from Australia or the UK or the United States or France or Germany or Italy?

cybercoma · September 9, 2015

Where have we heard this racist crap before whenever someone doesn't agree with the left agenda?

Right. The arguments are racist (bigoted actually) because people on the left disagree with you. That must be it.

PIK · September 9, 2015

Anybody that has ever question our immigration policies is always called racist.

BubberMiley · September 9, 2015

lol

Hard to take refugees seriously when they have something I don't have.

Hard to take people seriously if they think fleeing war means you shouldn't be living in this century. You do realize cell phones in these countries are not the luxury item they are in Canada, right? But it's a talking point worth reminding you to use, because it makes me feel confident that the CPC is entrenching itself as the third party.

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

Right. The arguments are racist (bigoted actually) because people on the left disagree with you. That must be it.

What?

I don't agree we just take 25,000 people from another country due to pressure from the left.

We have refugee processes for legitimate refugees, and there is concern many are not legitimate.

Due to this stance, the left declares I am a nationalist racist?

Uh, bullshit.

btw, I didn't coin the racist term, Waldo, then yourself did.

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

Hard to take people seriously if they think fleeing war means you shouldn't be living in this century. You do realize cell phones in these countries are not the luxury item they are in Canada, right? But it's a talking point worth reminding you to use, because it makes me feel confident that the CPC is entrenching itself as the third party.

If things were so dire they needed to flee their home and country, the last thing they should have packed is their effing cell phone, and maybe grabbed their wives and kids instead.

PIK · September 9, 2015

Harper is right about fixing the problem is fixing the countries that these people are coming from. It seems if the mulcair or trudeau were running the country in the 30's , they would bring all the poles and such to canada but would have left hitler alone to do what he wanted to do. What a joke.

drummindiver · September 9, 2015

Hard to take people seriously if they think fleeing war means you shouldn't be living in this century. You do realize cell phones in these countries are not the luxury item they are in Canada, right? But it's a talking point worth reminding you to use, because it makes me feel confident that the CPC is entrenching itself as the third party.

And what do you mean, not the luxury item they are in Canada?

What, their very lives depend on the fact they have cell phones?

Here I thought their lives were dependant on getting the hell out of a war zone and into a country that would support them.

Edited September 9, 2015 by drummindiver

BubberMiley · September 9, 2015

And what do you mean, not the luxury item they are in Canada?

What, their very lives depend on the fact they have cell phones?

You're right. There's no excuse for them having cell phones. None whatsoever. That is just the sort of attack that wins elections. Keep it up!

cybercoma · September 9, 2015

Anybody that has ever question our immigration policies is always called racist.

You can question immigration policies without being racist or bigoted. It just so happens that most of the arguments thrown around here aren't coming from a place of intelligence, but rather a place of fear mongering and ignorance about other people and cultures.