The Left invites terrorists into our home

[-TSS-]

Let's add to the previous post that yes; in my opinion the idea of men being feminists is just BS.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Look sir, with all respect, you are really putting a lot of doubt on the idea that you are a fair-minded and neutral moderator.

I am not moderating.  I am also not "neutral".  I have an opinion, but above all I like things to be clear and germane.  Using made-up words, poor English, or talking about Helsinki isn't accomplishing any of this.

16 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

As I understand the post which started this was WestCoastRunners  question can't men be feminists to which I responded admittedly childish but innocent but since then it would have gone away but for some reason you wanted to bring it back to the discussion. 

I posted a response, and didn't see that WCR already responded to you.  Anyway, you really should start a thread about feminism in Helsinki.

[Stan]

I think the idea that these liberals are more feminist or that they want more equality, more women in cabinet etc, falls down somewhat when instead of electing a female leader, for the first time ever, they went with they guy who gave them the best chance at power, the guy with the biggest liberal name in the game.  I have no doubt that some of the women in his cabinet would be better PM's than him, but, the liberals believe so strongly in feminism that they need to elect a man, a feminist man mind you, to prove their point.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Let's add to the previous post that yes; in my opinion the idea of men being feminists is just BS.

I missed the original question, pressures of work and all that, but I find the notion that men can't be feminists to be ridiculous.  I'm a feminist, and the last time I looked, a man too.

[PIK]

And now one of his best friends ,who has no ties to the military, and is a gay drunk, is now veteran affairs minister. Now the military allows gays to serve which is just fine for me, but showing up at events with your husband is going to be very poor optics. I am so sick of this gender base, neutral gender base, or whatever base decisions. Time to get the right people in the right jobs. And it is time for the left to grow some thicker skin and shed this PC BS  which is destroying the county. 

[Michael Hardner]

Post deleted.

 

I responded, but PIK's post is slander and off-topic.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, PIK said:

 And it is time for the left to grow some thicker skin and shed this PC BS  which is destroying the county. 

I guess you'll have to destroy us before its too late.

[OftenWrong]

On 8/28/2017 at 0:24 PM, drummindiver said:

Who's talking Trump? Many Liberals also don't agree with immigration/refugee status quo. https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds/wcm/7dcadc98-e7de-4e35-ba51-9d89992b1e79/amp

I knew you didn't mean Trump. TDS is a syndrome that abounds. It's very contagious. Victims are afflicted by rancid bubos upon the head, face and neck...

[drummindiver]

18 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Here's why:

 

He's joking. That's why he made women MP go through the back door of a mosque. Head covering mandatory.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

He's joking. That's why he made women MP go through the back door of a mosque. Head covering mandatory.

You don't understand pluralistic society or reasonable accommodation.  Religions are permitted to discriminate on such things as gender, and sexual orientation in hiring and such.  

[dre]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't understand pluralistic society or reasonable accommodation.  Religions are permitted to discriminate on such things as gender, and sexual orientation in hiring and such.  

Yup need to fix that.

[Rue]

18 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

Equality?  That's SOOOOO 2015.  I thought progressives were all about "equity" because "equality" wasn't good enough??

Interesting as this thread continues Trudeau is faced with a Siekh member of Parliament accused of sexual harassement and the double standard is there for all to see. If this individual was not a visible minority would he still be in caucus? Its a question many are asking today. Certainly his treatment of this mp differs from the two other mp's he expelled immediately. Why the difference?  Feminist my ass. He pampers to ethnics to get votes and he dares not alienate one of his minority mp's particularly in Calgary where he has few MP's and when he thinks it may negatively impact on his love by ethnic communities.

He's a two faced manipulator and he's a racist. His entire ideology is based on appealing to ethnics to place their ethnicity I n a hyphen and in interests before the word Canadian and to vote based on that ethnic interest first. Then he plays feel good messages that make it sound like he fairs that ethnic group when in side he could care less as long as he gets them to vote for him.  No I would not join the  golf course where Trudeau decides the membership. I would take a golf club and shove it up his racist ethnic pandering buttox. Thanks I'll go down the street and play street hockey-there the shmucks like me come in all sizes, colours and shapes and no one gives a damn what we are as long as you can play.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't understand pluralistic society or reasonable accommodation.  Religions are permitted to discriminate on such things as gender, and sexual orientation in hiring and such.  

Yes he's demonstrated that with his Siekh member of Parliament who is  accused of sexual harassment and he does sweet phack all but when it was to white mp's boom they were out of caucus with no investigation. Why the double standard?.  My answer is he does not want to alienate the Siekh community because Trudeau is a racist bastard and believes Siekhs are too, i.e., will put their ethnicity ahead as a priority to proper ethical behaviour with women.

This is what Liberalism is all about and the double standard is there for all to see. If women buy into this sob's feminist act  they are naïve. He's a manipulative eunuch.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Rue

[Argus]

20 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Here's why:

Anyone who fundamentally believes in equality and has confidence in equality would assess the qualifications of anyone without regard to their race, age, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. Someone who believes in equality treats everyone as equals. That is absolutely NOT what Trudeau does.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Argus

[PIK]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Post deleted.

 

I responded, but PIK's post is slander and off-topic.

What did I say? More truth?

[PIK]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Yes he's demonstrated that with his Siekh member of Parliament who is  accused of sexual harassment and he does sweet phack all but when it was to white mp's boom they were out of caucus with no investigation. Why the double standard?.  My answer is he does not want to alienate the Siekh community because Trudeau is a racist bastard and believes Siekhs are too, i.e., will put their ethnicity ahead as a priority to proper ethical behaviour with women.

This is what Liberalism is all about and the double standard is there for all to see. If women buy into this sob's feminist act  they are naïve. He's a manipulative eunuch.

Then the native who was treated badly by trudeau ,but yet his buddy shamus gets a promotion.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Post deleted.

 

I responded, but PIK's post is slander and off-topic.

Shamus O'regan is openly gay and married to a man and underwent treatment for alcoholism last year, and publicly acknowledged it. So no slander there. Whether he was appointed so Trudeau could pander to the gay community and once again demonstrate how amazingly inclusive he is would depend on his qualifications for being Veterans Affairs minister.

Uhm... know of any?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah calling someone a 'drunk' who has gone through rehab is insulting slander and OT.  I wanted to move on, did you really need to reply?  A military leader who drinks too much, wow that's a new thing...

[GostHacked]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Anyone who fundamentally believes in equality and has confidence in equality would assess the qualifications of anyone without regard to their race, age, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. Someone who believes in equality treats everyone as equals. That is absolutely NOT what Trudeau does.

I doubt there are many out there that treat everyone equally. Not just government.

[PIK]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah calling someone a 'drunk' who has gone through rehab is insulting slander and OT.  I wanted to move on, did you really need to reply?  A military leader who drinks too much, wow that's a new thing...

Grow up, a drunk is a drunk. I come from a area that has the highest amount of drunks. So I know a drunk when I see one. As they say once a alcoholic alway a alcoholic, that is from the book. And I know many drunks that are recovering and they say the same thing. The problem we have in this country is people like yourself that tries to sugar coat everything, that helps no one. We need to get back to the truth, even if it hurts someone's feelings. Shamus is no military leader but a slap in the face to all vets.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, PIK said:

The problem we have in this country is people like yourself that tries to sugar coat everything, that helps no one. We need to get back to the truth, even if it hurts someone's feelings. Shamus is no military leader but a slap in the face to all vets.

Nah.  The problem is people who cheerlead for their side no matter what and bring dirty politics into every discussion.  "Slap in the face"... is mindless hyperbole.  If a gay man is a recovered alcoholic and competent I would give him a chance even if he was Conservative but I don't see the other side as evil and worthy of slander because I didn't vote for them.

Can we get back to the topic now, or do you want to waste more bandwidth calling liberals names ?

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, PIK said:

... shed this PC BS  which is destroying the county. 

What's destroying this country is a complete ignorance of something called merit.  If you could focus on that rather than somebody's personal life then your post could be responded to seriously.  Until then, you might be better off at a gossip forum or maybe just not posting.   What's the topic again ?

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/28/2017 at 0:16 PM, Argus said:

I am a risk averse person. I won't take a risk without a reward. The higher the risk, the higher the reward I need to motivate me. In this case we have risk in accepting people from these areas and no reward. Good immigrants? We can get those anywhere, and in a higher percentage than from these countries.

I thought your last post was enough of a final thought on our discussion to leave it, but since we have pages of people discussing feminism in Finland, gay drunks, and so on I thought I'd respond once again hopefully to get this back to the OP.

I think I have found a defining difference of understanding in your last two sentences, and if resolved we could agree 100%.  If indeed we can get immigrants 'anywhere' then I would be fine with a 'risk averse' policy to only allow people from, say, G20 countries.  I don't believe that to be the case, and the theoretical exercise would prove that out.  At this point, we are agreeing on principles and there's nothing explicitly liberal or conservative about the policy we're designing - it's pure numbers.

 

On 8/28/2017 at 0:16 PM, Argus said:

And we could find an Obama type elsewhere. Are more likely to, in fact.

See above.

On 8/28/2017 at 0:16 PM, Argus said:

Agreed. Just because we make people pass drivers tests doesn't mean they're all going to be good drivers. But imagine what the streets would be like if we had no drivers tests at all...

It's just an analogy, but to follow it to the other extreme: if we made driver's test so difficult, and driving so safe as for there to be near-zero risk then the transportation system would be prohibitively expensive.  And this plays out in the immigration example in terms of there being an unlimited supply of applicants.  I would assume there isn't, and therefore we have to make calculated risks to accept the target number.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Yes he's demonstrated that with his Siekh member of Parliament who is  accused of sexual harassment and he does sweet phack all but when it was to white mp's boom they were out of caucus with no investigation. Why the double standard?.  My answer is he does not want to alienate the Siekh community because Trudeau is a racist bastard and believes Siekhs are too, i.e., will put their ethnicity ahead as a priority to proper ethical behaviour with women.

 

I don't recall hearing about the Sikh accused of sexual harassment?   Do you have a link.

Quote

If women buy into this sob's feminist act  they are naïve. He's a manipulative eunuch.

Manipulative maybe, but definitely not a eunuch.  Unless you are also claiming Sophie's been straying and those kids are fake Trudeaus.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Here's why:

 

Sure JT is all for gender equality. If he were not then he would probably loose the women's vote. All politicians have to be pretty much politically correct for everything if they want to get elected or re-elected. And if JT were so pro women's rights then why does he stay quiet on Muslim women who have to stay at the back of the class and are not allowed to be up front with the men praying? You talk like you believe that politicians care about what you or me thinks or our rights.  From what I have been observing all these years is that politicians of all the different political party's have to show their loyalty to their leader of their party. The leader than as to show is loyalty to the banksters/corporations/special interest groups if they want to remain the leader. You and me are like the pawns on a chessboard. They have to defend the king and queen from getting checkmated.