Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

[eyeball]

But the lefties have to do it so they can feel good about themselves, I guess. Actually helping isn't as important as putting on a show of how good you are.

To be perfectly honest I do get a sense of satisfaction from this. It results from seeing you folks get your ginch in such a knot. You deserve it after years of ignoring the warnings about the humanitarian disaster that would stem from our sides all too often violent and destructive policies in the ME.

[eyeball]

I am not surprised you are hearing strange sounds and voices in your head. Not even slightly.

Well, the head is where the feeling of what happens occurs so...what do you hear when your thoughts bounce around the inside of your skull, a dull thud?

[dialamah]

I don't have time to argue with people who can't agree that winterizing accommodations located on military bases is an upgrade.

Yes, but it's kind of a weird way to make a point, because in the normal course of events, those facilities are not used in the winter. If it became necessary to use those accommodations to house army personnel in the winter, are you suggesting those same upgrades would not have happened?

Not to mention, the reason they are using those barracks is to reduce the number of military personnel impacted by refugees having temporary accommodation. Are you suggesting it would be better not to winterize these places, and just relocate military personnel from accommodations that are already winterized, so as to avoid appearing to unfairly 'upgrade' facilities for refugees at the expense of our military personnel?

[capricorn]

Yes, but it's kind of a weird way to make a point,

Weird, as in your eyes.

A call for tenders went out on Thursday to winterize 10 buildings that normally house cadets during summer training at the Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in Quebec.

The $1.5 million project for "the supply of labour, material, supervision and equipment necessary to winterize 10 houses at the Cadet Camp" would have to be completed within "a very short timeline" of Dec. 30, according to the notice posted online Thursday.

The work includes the installation of a heating and venting system, the construction of new exterior walls, the installation of exterior doors, floor and roof insulation as well as fireproof curtains.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/refugees-temporary-military-housing-quebec-ontario-1.3326462

That's $1.5 million, just at one base, that will be spent to upgrade accommodations for refugees. It's doubtful the Liberals would spend that kind of cash on any existing facilities anywhere in Canada for our troops.

[GostHacked]

When you consider the number of promises the Liberals made to win the election (something for everyone) the voters should have realized that it would not be possible to keep all of those promises.

Much of a surprise that elected leaders cannot keep all their promises? Say it ain't so.

Of course they could not get 25,000 Syrians into Canada by the end of the year. Logistically NOT possible, since they are just ramping up the process.

[Smallc]

I don't have time to argue with people who can't agree that winterizing accommodations located on military bases is an upgrade.

Summer student accommodations you mean, of course. If you want to mischaracterize what's happening, that's fine though.

[Hal 9000]

There's been at least one study suggesting that risk-averse people also tend to be more conservative over all. http://www.futurity.org/politics-conservative-dopamine-989972-2/ So to my mind, not an insult but more a statement of fact.

But if you like, I'll rephrase: "Perhaps we'll end up with more progressive people because conservative people tend to be risk-averse and will choose to stay home."

Most of my family tend to be conservative, they prefer things to remain the same and to avoid the unfamiliar. I don't get why they let fear direct their actions and miss out on some great experiences, but perhaps they have little choice if it's partly gene-driven. I've seen the same kind of fear exhibited by conservative people my entire life, especially Republicans when I began following US politics more. To me the religious right is probably the most fearful type of person there is, regardless of culture or religion.

First off, you do insult more that conservatives - go re-read your posts.

Secondly, you mention fear in regards to conservatives three times (in that one post), if that's what you think drives conservatives, you're very wrong.

[dialamah]

Secondly, you mention fear in regards to conservatives three times (in that one post), if that's what you think drives conservatives, you're very wrong.

Ok, I'm wrong. :shrug:

[notca]

I wonder how many of these refugees will end up in the USA?

I think the Americans are wondering that too!

[notca]

"Allocating prayer space" - I could be wrong here, but 'allocating space' doesn't mean the same thing as 'Sprucing up'. Fail #2. In any case, I imagine military personnel are allowed accommodation for their religious needs, so why not refugees?

In wartime the military provided religious services for Protestants and Catholics. Jews had no where to go so they chose one of the above.

This is not 'wartime' so why are the Muslims so privileged? FGS do they HAVE to pray en masse? Do they think Allah can not hear their individual prayers?

[dialamah]

In wartime the military provided religious services for Protestants and Catholics. Jews had no where to go so they chose one of the above.

This is not 'wartime' so why are the Muslims so privileged? FGS do they HAVE to pray en masse? Do they think Allah can not hear their individual prayers?

Maybe we're trying to be nicer now than we were to the Jews, eh? And maybe for the actual Muslim services they will use an existing 'religious' building. Maybe when the organizers say "allocate prayer space", they merely mean a quiet corner where an individual can have a moment of privacy. I expect most of them would be praying inside their homes, but on the other hand, I don't know the layout of military bases, or the accommodations, or just why the organizers would think that is important. And maybe it's not, they're just going all out to ensure a little comfort for people who've bee through hell. Seems to be a problem for some people, which I think is kind of petty and nitpicky, but then I'm not expecting these prayer spaces to be extravagant either - maybe a sign saying "prayer space --->", or something.

[notca]

Maybe we're trying to be nicer now than we were to the Jews, eh? And maybe for the actual Muslim services they will use an existing 'religious' building. Maybe when the organizers say "allocate prayer space", they merely mean a quiet corner where an individual can have a moment of privacy. I expect most of them would be praying inside their homes, but on the other hand, I don't know the layout of military bases, or the accommodations, or just why the organizers would think that is important. And maybe it's not, they're just going all out to ensure a little comfort for people who've bee through hell. Seems to be a problem for some people, which I think is kind of petty and nitpicky, but then I'm not expecting these prayer spaces to be extravagant either - maybe a sign saying "prayer space --->", or something.

It isn't being petty and nitpicky. Refugees, imo, would be needing safety and sustenance. We are providing that for them. The cost of this endeavor already exceeds six billion dollars that we don't have. It only seems prudent to cut out any services which are unnecessary to safety and sustenance. There are a good many of our own disadvantaged people who are living in conditions that are poorer than those that will be provided for the refugees. Those people too have children who go hungry and are endangered by the violence of life on the streets. Nobody volunteered to give our disadvantage a chance for betterment in their lives to the tune of six thousand, never mind six billion!

How much is enough? How much is too much? Shouldn't 'adequate' be enough for now?

Edited November 26, 2015 by notca

[dialamah]

There are a good many of our own disadvantaged people who are living in conditions that are poorer than those that will be provided for the refugees. Those people too have children who go hungry and are endangered by the violence of life on the streets. Nobody volunteered to give our disadvantage a chance for betterment in their lives to the tune of six thousand, never mind six billion!

How much is enough? How much is too much? Shouldn't 'adequate' be enough for now?

I agree that there are very many disadvantaged people in our country, and for whom we should be doing more. But we have to have both the political and social will to help those people. In BC, I've seen that business people are offering jobs and property owners are offering free rent for up to four months for the refugees. How sweet is that?

But where are these people when a 55 year old disabled man is looking for part-time work and decent living accommodation? For a single mother who is working a minimum wage job and going to the food bank in order to feed her kids? Where is the support for increasing minimum wage to an actual 'living' wage, even a poor living? It's not there. Instead, we get people (usually conservatives) saying things like: they can find a different job, people shouldn't expect the government to look after them, these people made choices, not our fault if now they're suffering for them.

It's really convenient for people to use the plight of our own "poor" people to deny refugees, and yet also refuse to help our own poor people because essentially it's not up to "them" and if poor people are poor, it must be because of something they did or didn't do (didn't get an education, had kids when they shouldn't have, spent too much time partying, etc). Maybe not you specifically, but I've seen more than a few exhibit that kind of hypocrisy here and there.

Anyway, for the moment there is both the political and social will to help these people, and to spend the money it takes. Maybe some day there'll be the same support for our own, and that will happen as well.

[Hal 9000]

I agree that there are very many disadvantaged people in our country, and for whom we should be doing more.

---SNIP---

Conservatives do more for charity than liberals. Edited November 26, 2015 by Charles Anthony
---SNIP---

[dialamah]

Conservatives do more for charity than liberals.

If you say so.

[cybercoma]

If we told the black community, we were moving a shitload of people into their community and 15-20% were KKK members, would they be racist for expressing their concerns?

Youre comparing refugees fleeing a civil war and trying to escape radical Islamists to the KKK. Are you feeling okay?

[cybercoma]

Who says we need to keep the 25,000 indefinitely? Send them home when the war in Syria is over.

Our international treaties say we keep them. You may want to educate yourself on the laws and obligations we have before forming an opinion, so you don't look foolish.

[Hal 9000]

Youre comparing refugees fleeing a civil war and trying to escape radical Islamists to the KKK. Are you feeling okay?

Youre comparing refugees fleeing a civil war and trying to escape radical Islamists to the KKK. Are you feeling okay?

I agree! But if you view much of the preceding posts (in this and other threads), its you people who brought the KKK into this. I was just continuing with the theme.

[Hal 9000]

If you say so.

I do say so!

Most of the studies are US based, but it's pretty much the same here. And, it's not just money, but volunteer work also.

Conservatives give more than liberals

Repubs give more than Dems

Christians give more than atheists

[dialamah]

I do say so!

Most of the studies are US based, but it's pretty much the same here. And, it's not just money, but volunteer work also.

Conservatives give more than liberals

Repubs give more than Dems

Christians give more than atheists

There's also evidence that poorer conservatives give more than rich liberals, and that poorer people of any persuasion give a higher proportion of their income to those in need than do richer people.

https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives

Also, the way the charity is described makes a difference in giving for both conservative and liberal:

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.”

Interesting stuff.

[Hal 9000]

There's also evidence that poorer conservatives give more than rich liberals, and that poorer people of any persuasion give a higher proportion of their income to those in need than do richer people.

https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives

Also, the way the charity is described makes a difference in giving for both conservative and liberal:

Interesting stuff.

I'm sure you'll find some periodicals that will try to explain it away, but the facts are the facts. Church folk (those hateful christians) give nearly 50% more in money and volunteer time than the ever so evolved atheists.

So, all these cliches that you live by; Cons are mean, greedy, heartless, fearful etc etc. are all unfounded.

[notca]

I agree that there are very many disadvantaged people in our country, and for whom we should be doing more. But we have to have both the political and social will to help those people. In BC, I've seen that business people are offering jobs and property owners are offering free rent for up to four months for the refugees. How sweet is that?

But where are these people when a 55 year old disabled man is looking for part-time work and decent living accommodation? For a single mother who is working a minimum wage job and going to the food bank in order to feed her kids? Where is the support for increasing minimum wage to an actual 'living' wage, even a poor living? It's not there. Instead, we get people (usually conservatives) saying things like: they can find a different job, people shouldn't expect the government to look after them, these people made choices, not our fault if now they're suffering for them.

It's really convenient for people to use the plight of our own "poor" people to deny refugees, and yet also refuse to help our own poor people because essentially it's not up to "them" and if poor people are poor, it must be because of something they did or didn't do (didn't get an education, had kids when they shouldn't have, spent too much time partying, etc). Maybe not you specifically, but I've seen more than a few exhibit that kind of hypocrisy here and there.

Anyway, for the moment there is both the political and social will to help these people, and to spend the money it takes. Maybe some day there'll be the same support for our own, and that will happen as well.

I'm not against helping people. I think what bothers me most is the mass hysteria that the government and media have whipped up over the refugee crisis. The government (any government) who will go to such lengths to provide for refugees but turn a blind eye to their own people's needs makes me angry.

Maybe it bothers me more than some others because I've been one of those poor single mothers working at two jobs and refused an application for low income housing because 'they are for families'. One child doesn't make a family apparently, in the eyes of the government.

I'm not going to hijack this thread with my own experiences as a desperate person. I just think that the help the government and even private individuals are giving the refugees is over and above what is needed.

I'm also concerned about the cost. The deficit is going to cost us all dearly in the long run and the unemployment situation is promising to worsen. (Maple Leaf Food today announced a lay-off of 400 more). We are all going to be living in dire poverty at some future point. Some legacy for our children! It isn't just the Federal deficit but the Provinces are also going to need more from us.

I think they could have done this a lot more cheaply if they wanted to.

Chartering jets? If they wanted to involve the military why not use troop carriers to transport the refugees? We have ships that could transport more than a jetliner and we're already paying their crews.

Health care? Why don't they set up temporary clinics for the refugees? Maybe hire back some of the nurses that have been previously laid off? (I'm speaking here about Ontario). Our facilities here are already bursting at the seams. My husband became paralysed and almost died 2 years ago because of lack of care.

It isn't the refugees themselves or even helping them that upsets me. It is the way it is being done and the strain it will put on our services and our economy and problems that will arise that haven't even been considered yet by the majority of people.

[eyeball]

I'm sure you'll find some periodicals that will try to explain it away, but the facts are the facts. Church folk (those hateful christians) give nearly 50% more in money and volunteer time than the ever so evolved atheists.

So what? I'm a godless leftie and I've been a volunteer most of my adult life.

So, all these cliches that you live by; Cons are mean, greedy, heartless, fearful etc etc. are all unfounded.

No, the basis in reality for these observations are just as real.

Now that I think more with my head than my heart I've come to realize that volunteers provide free unpaid labour to an otherwise greedy demanding society that imposes a moral imperative on everyone to produce and carry their own weight. I don't see why anyone should lift a free unpaid finger until such time as society carry it's own weight and pay it's own way by giving volunteers tax breaks/grants commensurate with the economic value of their labour, which is around $20 an hour in Canada.

Edited November 26, 2015 by eyeball

[Hal 9000]

So what? I'm a godless leftie and I've been a volunteer most of my adult life.

No, the basis in reality for these observations are just as real.

No, it's not. The evidence doesn't support the stereotype.

Don't you see that the bigoted stereotyping you people are using against conservatives (and Christians too) has less foundation in reality than any stereotypes people are making about Islam .

[eyeball]

Don't you see that the bigoted stereotyping you people are using against conservatives (and Christians too) has less foundation in reality than any stereotypes people are making about Islam .

No I don't - because Muslims are just as conservative.