Argus Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 imagine Pamela Geller taking liberties with a poll result - I'm shocked! The actual presentation graphic associated with the result/article - "overwhelmingly negative"... you sure wouldn't know/interpret that from the GellerSpinCycle! It's interesting that you, who had endless complaints about Pew Research are now trumpeting a Pew poll on ISIS. However let's look at the likelihood of it being slightly flawed. It's more than a little dangerous in most of those countries to openly admit you support ISIS. They are all autocratic, and you could find yourself picked up by the security services for such an admission. I also wonder at the very high number of 'unknown's. In Pakistan, for example, over 60% "didn't know" if they supported ISIS. In southeast Asian states where religious fervor runs very high, about a third of respondents 'didn't know'. Quote "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
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 It's interesting that you, who had endless complaints about Pew Research are now trumpeting a Pew poll on ISIS. no - not endless complaints about Pew Research! Why make shyte up? Highlighting critical assessment of the single survey you perpetually flog, is hardly "endless complaints"... it's like me saying that survey is your "endless ready-reach, go-to resource"! Oh wait... carry on! as for your suggested "trumpeting", is pointing out Gellar's spin doesn't match the Pew summation/presentation graphic... "trumpeting it"? Try again, MLW member 'Argus' - try harder! . Quote
Shady Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 no - not endless complaints about Pew Research! Why make shyte up? Highlighting critical assessment of the single survey you perpetually flog, is hardly "endless complaints"... it's like me saying that survey is your "endless ready-reach, go-to resource"! Oh wait... carry on! as for your suggested "trumpeting", is pointing out Gellar's spin doesn't match the Pew summation/presentation graphic... "trumpeting it"? Try again, MLW member 'Argus' - try harder! . Continue to keep your head in the sand. Quote
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Continue to keep your head in the sand. I could rise to your bait but will instead take the high road and leave you to your drive-by sniping Quote
GostHacked Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 I'm just glad that our clueless prime minister came to his senses and realized that 25,000 refugees by the end of the year was irresponsible and reckless. And the political grandstanding isn't in Canada's best interest. Aside from being reckless and irresponsible, it was impossible to accomplish. They knew they had no way to bring 25000 people here in a months time. Only if someone in this thread had made that conclusion before. Oh wait .... Quote
Shady Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Aside from being reckless and irresponsible, it was impossible to accomplish. They knew they had no way to bring 25000 people here in a months time. Only if someone in this thread had made that conclusion before. Oh wait .... Well if you did, then you are/were correct. Quote
GostHacked Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Well if you did, then you are/were correct. Anyone who can crunch a few numbers knew it was not possible. That was glazed over as the rhetoric towards taking in terrorists took over around the time of the attacks in France. They would have had to bring in about 1000 people a day starting at the beginning of December. All the rhetoric meant nothing because of this. Or about 500 people starting at the beginning of November. Knowing they were just really getting started on the immigration process, it was doomed from the start and they would have had to change their plan even without the France attacks. But those attacks helped sow some seeds of 'omg we are letting in terrorists' while we continue to contribute to the bombings their homes. We have helped displace hundreds of thousands of people. Sure we also know Assad is bombing to fight the rebels, ISIS is bombing to fight Assad, and the Rebels the west supports continue to bomb, Turkey is also bombing, along with Russia. Syria is collectively getting it's ass kicked from all sides and we wonder why people don't want to stay and fight, and wonder why they want to immigrate to western nations. Who would they be fighting with and for? Quote
capricorn Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Canada's new Liberal government is pushing forward with its pledge to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February. McCallum says Canada hopes to settle 35,000 to 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016, with the UN refugee agency, the Jordanian government and the International Organization for Migration assisting with the vetting process. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-aims-to-double-intake-of-syrian-refugees-to-50-000-mccallum-1.2708202 It ain't easy keeping up with the changing targets, processes and deadlines of this new government. The fun part is how to pay for all this benevolence. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
WestCoastRunner Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-aims-to-double-intake-of-syrian-refugees-to-50-000-mccallum-1.2708202 It ain't easy keeping up with the changing targets, processes and deadlines of this new government. The fun part is how to pay for all this benevolence. What exactly is your problem with this? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-aims-to-double-intake-of-syrian-refugees-to-50-000-mccallum-1.2708202 It ain't easy keeping up with the changing targets Four numbers and three dates is really difficult, I agree. Quote
capricorn Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 What exactly is your problem with this? Would you like me to be as "exact" as the government? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
eyeball Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 The fun part is how to pay for all this benevolence. The sad part is that we still owe money for all the malevolence it took to generate the refugees in the first place - something Trudeau is clearly still just as bent on doing. If money was all that really mattered in the scheme of things you'd think we'd just make up our silly minds and do one or the other but we do both. Catch 22...stupid is as stupid does... Feel free to add cliches everyone. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
capricorn Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Four numbers and three dates is really difficult, I agree. I appreciate your efforts to simplify things. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
jacee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-aims-to-double-intake-of-syrian-refugees-to-50-000-mccallum-1.2708202 It ain't easy keeping up with the changing targets, processes and deadlines of this new government. The fun part is how to pay for all this benevolence. That's the easy part: Refugees get jobs, start businesses, pay taxes, kids grow up, get educated, get jobs, pay taxes ...My ancestors were Irish refugees from famine. There are hundreds and hundreds of us now. We have jobs, businesses, farms , pay taxes ... Same old same old ... Canada goes on as it always has. Harper's focus on bringing in wealthy immigrants didn't work out so well! /refugees-reporting-higher-earnings-in-canada-than-investor-immigrants . Edited December 21, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Canada has a tradition of humanitarianism towards refugees; of working with and supporting the UNHCR and private sponsors. Clearly, you refuse to adjust your expectations and feel warranted in casting refugees with the same "economic contribution" benchmark you attach to immigrants. I am not opposed to offering asylum to individuals who are being persecuted or are in danger in their own country. However, when we suggest whole nations worth of people qualify as refugees I think we'd be better off in simply forwarding money to the UN to help them deal with large groups closer to their origin. This sort of thing, is much more along the lines of what sort of refugees I think we should be allowing in. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/couple-finds-sanctuary-in-canada-to-escape-killings-of-writers-in-bangladesh/article27890972/ Since you keep repeating your alternate expenditure preference, care to actually step up and indicate how monies provided to refugee camps/centers will do "ten times as much good"? That information was previously posted on this topic. Edited December 21, 2015 by Argus Quote "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
Argus Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) That's the easy part: Refugees get jobs, start businesses, pay taxes, Go on welfare, require public housing, get arrested... Harper's focus on bringing in wealthy immigrants didn't work out so well! I've previously written about this abortion of a program which basically allowed wealthy foreigners to buy a Canadian passport. I find it disgraceful. They cancelled it because it was an obvious failure, but then started a new one with lower numbers of sales. Let's not kid ourselves, however. This is just well-heeled Chinese buying a Canadian house or something so they can stick a passport in their wall safe in Shanghai or Hong Kong in case they need it. It should be scrapped. Edited December 21, 2015 by Argus Quote "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
Argus Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 What exactly is your problem with this? For those of us who pay taxes, importing tens of thousands more people who will not be able to pay taxes but will only ever consume services is not a plus. Quote "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
Argus Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Four numbers and three dates is really difficult, I agree. You mean like how 10,000 became 25,000 became 50,000 became.... Quote "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
Smallc Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 You mean like how 10,000 became 25,000 became 50,000 became.... Yes, add in 35,000 and that's 4 numbers. Quote
ironstone Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 do you have information to suggest security, health or criminal screening processes have been compromised? . I don't know the answer to this question,so can you tell us,step by step,what the vetting process involves?How exactly do they determine if someone is lying or not? So you don't like Pam Gellar,do you also totally discount the Al Jazeera article which states how EASY it is to obtain fake passports? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Argus Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Yes, add in 35,000 and that's 4 numbers. And add in about $3-$4 billion per year to look after those refugees. Quote "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
eyeball Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Don't forget that's on top of what we've spent creating refugees. Of course you're accountant so you'd know that. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 And add in about $3-$4 billion per year to look after those refugees. I've already said I don't like refugees in general. Quote
eyeball Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Then why do you like policies that create refugees? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 For those of us who pay taxes, importing tens of thousands more people who will not be able to pay taxes but will only ever consume services is not a plus.So you reckon that if you're from Syria you can't/wont work, you will of course just go on welfare forever and require pubic funded housing and/or you will commit some type of heinous crime and go to jail. OK got ya. Now were you saying something about not having seen any racist comments around here for awhile? Quote
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.