marcus Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 What you said was Ferociously suppress suggest more than speaking out. Well, let me clear that up for you: I would never promote violence or "putting people in camps". I am merely talking about sharing our thoughts and speaking out against racism and bigotry so it doesn't become acceptable. This includes, pushing our leaders to do the same. I want to hold onto our moral values and respect for human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 No more immigration from muslim countries will fix it. That is the only way to get the so called moderate off their ass and start doing something about the evil that has taken over their so peaceful religion. I am tired of the political correctness, white mans guilt and the cowards in this country. It is time to fix this problem once and for all. Well yes pik, we all want it solved right now. Take a break. We're figuring it out. It's never as simple as bomb someone is it? Then you have refugees, and you have to figure that out. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Because those camps cannot sustain people permanently. Also, the countries where these camps are set-up are unable to take any more refugees permanently. Countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Iran already have hundreds of thousands of Syrian, Iraqi and Afghani refugees that are already being taken in. Why do they need to be permanent? Why can't they return home once the fighting is over? You know, rebuild their country? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Folks, Please avoid thread drift. From this point onward, if your post disappears, it is because you posted thread drift. Ch. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Actually, our eldest daughter gave us the solution to this dilema over dinner tonight. She suggested that these refugees be distributed within Canada in direct proportion to the percentage of Liberal votes from each constituency. Additionally, each Liberal MP should have to sponsor a family. Finally, a number of such families should take up residence at 22 Sussex. Of course, unlike the armchair warriors around here, she makes those statements as her husband relates battle plan scenarios he is teaching right now, in full awareness that under NATO rules, he may well be back in the field carrying them out once more. I suggest that someone has taught your eldest daughter to misunderstand how a democracy works. An elected government speaks for the whole nation. Harper did so as is Trudeau now. Using your daughters logic, only the children of those voting conservative should have been sent to Afghanistan and Ben Harper should be forced to join our armed forces and sent to Syria to assist the mission that his father began. I assume that you have since guided her thinking into another direction. Edited November 17, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 More refugees isn't the problem, slashing the process in screening said refugees, coming from a war zone, of which ISIS itself has stated they have members among (and was confirmed in Paris) for political expediency is. Because we only have a single person doing the screening working 24/7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Because we only have a single person doing the screening working 24/7? Ahh..i dont care if we have 500 screeners if 500 isn't enough to get the job done right before the new year which is of course the painfully obvious point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 BTW, this: More refugees isn't the problem, slashing the process in screening said refugees, coming from a war zone, of which ISIS itself has stated they have members among (and was confirmed in Paris) for political expediency is. Is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Ahh..i dont care if we have 500 screeners if 500 isn't enough to get the job done right before the new year which is of course the painfully obvious point.There was a post earlier indicating that the UN reps say it's easy to select 25,000 'safe' refugees because many have been in refugee camps for several years now, and have been well scrutinized.We're you aware of that? Are you just blowing smoke? . Edited November 17, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) There was a post earlier indicating that the UN reps say it's easy to select 25,000 'safe' refugees because many have been in refugee camps for several years now, and have been well scrutinized. We're you aware of that? Are you just blowing smoke? . First off, get over yourself, secondly, this is Canada, a sovereign country, we make our own rules and can do things for our own reasons, we are not beholden to the UN in any we do not have to take the UN's word on the safety of any refugee, nor should we until we are sure they meet our own standards as over seen and investigated by our own people. This isn't complicated, no really, it isn't. Edited November 17, 2015 by poochy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) First off, get over yourself, secondly, this is Canada, a sovereign country, we make our own rules and can do things for our own reasons, we are not beholden to the UN in any we do not have to take the UN's word on the safety of any refugee, nor should we until we are sure they meet our own standards as over seen and investigated by our own people. This isn't complicated, no really, it isn't.It would be wise to review the work of several years of investigation and surveillance. Could be helpful.Would be stupid not to. . Edited November 17, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 BTW, this: Is false. Btw, that, is still in question, of course if you read conspiracy theory news sites you might be assured that they weren't hiding among refugees. Anyway, this news report doesn't agree with it being false. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34839187 "It took minutes to take his details" Lets hope we can do better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 It would be wise to review the work of several years of investigation and surveillance. Could be helpful. Would be stupid not to. . It would also be wise not to presume that work has been done to our standards, again, this is obvious. No one is saying ignore the UN, but we also don't simply take people on faith, not to meet a silly politically motivated deadline, not in light of recent events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 It would also be wise not to presume that work has been done to our standards, again, this is obvious. No one is saying ignore the UN, but we also don't simply take people on faith, not to meet a silly politically motivated deadline, not in light of recent events.How have recent events changed the Canadian commitment to accept 25,000 refugees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Racism and bigotry are never acceptable arguments. . You don't get to say what is acceptable, especially since there is no agreed upon definition of racism or bigotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 It would also be wise not to presume that work has been done to our standards, again, this is obvious. No one is saying ignore the UN, but we also don't simply take people on faith, not to meet a silly politically motivated deadline, not in light of recent events. Where does it say that the UN disqualifies terrorists as refugees? A terrorist in a refugee camp could conceivably tell UN screeners they have sworn off their murderous ways and "please, please I want to go to Europe or America". And who's to say that the UN doesn't have ISIS sympathizers in their midst? We must do our own thorough screening. You have to ask yourself, what's the rush to clear 25,000 refugees given the events of the last while. It's no use asking Trudeau's cause his standard reply is that Canadians elected the Liberals on the promise of bringing in 25,000 refugees before year's end and that's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 When people say let's close the border to destitute people that's smearing an entire religious group. "Got it now"? I have no idea how you get that, but saying it simply demonstrates what I said above. There is no agreed upon definition of racism or bigotry. Some people take virtually everything which happens as racism or bigotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 ...what's the rush to clear 25,000 refugees given the events of the last while. ... Why should the events of the last while have any effect on how we process refugees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Why should the events of the last while have any effect on how we process refugees? In my view, the promise to bring in 25,000 refugees by year's end was ill conceived right from the start, that is during the election campaign. So regardless of recent events, I didn't agree with that plan from the get go. edit spelling Edited November 17, 2015 by capricorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Why should the events of the last while have any effect on how we process refugees?That's something I've been wondering as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) You said ... "13% of Syrian refugees surveyed support ISIS." ISIS did not exist prior to the Syrian war, and we didn't have thousands of Syrian refugees so how could 13% of what didn't exist support something that also didn't exist? I said this was about women who worked outside the home, which related to the ability of incoming refugees to be eventually be self-sustaining in Canada. The poll on Syrian refugees was, of course not taken prior to the war. It can be found here. Edited November 17, 2015 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I have full right to evaluate and express what I feel is and what is not an acceptable argument - as do you. Demeaning a race or culture or religion based on some individuals warped personal standards is not acceptable for me. No one cares what is acceptable to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Well, let me clear that up for you: I would never promote violence or "putting people in camps". I am merely talking about sharing our thoughts and speaking out against racism and bigotry so it doesn't become acceptable. This includes, pushing our leaders to do the same. I want to hold onto our moral values and respect for human rights. I'm fine with this. If you don't like what someone says you have a right to speak out to counter that. Suppressing what someone says has a completely different philosophy behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 No one cares what is acceptable to you.You asked me in #303. In the future if you are not interested then do not ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 IUsing your daughters logic, only the children of those voting conservative should have been sent to Afghanistan and Ben Harper should be forced to join our armed forces and sent to Syria to assist the mission that his father began. No one was forced to go to Afghanistan. They were all volunteers. And realistically there likely weren't very many Liberals among them. 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.