Jump to content

War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact


scribblet

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. How does #2 follow from #1 ?  Neoliberal governments, including Harper, want to increase population to achieve conventional economic goals but you add #2 for some reason for the Liberals and say "it would not be surprising".  Then an ad hominem at the end.

3. What I see is scare-mongering and it's been happening for years.

1. & 2.) How does #2 following from #1? Well, have you read anything about the content of the UN Compact for Migration? The pact's verbiage promotes both censorship and propaganda in defense of its aims, which in the context of signatory states that otherwise adhere to democratic values is pretty scary stuff. There's been a lot of public commentary and criticism regarding this aspect of the pact. Some apologists think that democracies, like Canada, can just ignore this part of the document, as it's 'non-binding', after all. But can a reasonable observer imagine that the Libs, with their demonstrated attachment to moralistic stratagems (i.e. M-103, if you need an example), would sign such a pact and not take advantage of its verbiage to impose their preferred narrative? It think it utterly naive to believe they won't. As for your 'ad hominem' critique, please clarify. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the concept? In rhetorical practice, the assertion of an opinion broadly grounded in fairly well understood fact or reputation does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Are you arguing, against common perception, that progressivism doesn't tolerate and promote forms of censorship and assert the value of "acceptable" speech over free speech?

3.) You don't appear to understand the mentality of the current Lib government, which likes nothing better than to burnish its own self-proclaimed moral superiority in support of its agenda. But you need not take my word for this. In her column in today's Toronto Star ('Betting on an eventful campaign year'), Chantal Hebert notes that Trudeau's Libs "...tend to defend their policies with mind-numbing platitudes." What better source of "progressive" platitudes on the immigration file could one imagine than the UN Compact for Migration? I think that those who are convinced the pact's provisions aren't reflective of and/or won't govern the Lib's approach to and defense of their migration agenda likely believe in Santa Claus, unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. & 2.) How does #2 following from #1? Well, have you read anything about the content of the UN Compact for Migration? The pact's verbiage promotes both censorship and propaganda in defense of its aims, which in the context of signatory states that otherwise adhere to democratic values is pretty scary stuff. There's been a lot of public commentary and criticism regarding this aspect of the pact. Some apologists think that democracies, like Canada, can just ignore this part of the document, as it's 'non-binding', after all. But can a reasonable observer imagine that the Libs, with their demonstrated attachment to moralistic stratagems (i.e. M-103, if you need an example), would sign such a pact and not take advantage of its verbiage to impose their preferred narrative?

The Liberals have already announced a propaganda campaign to ensure Canadians hear lots of nice warm stories about immigrants and migrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. & 2.) How does #2 following from #1? Well, have you read anything about the content of the UN Compact for Migration? The pact's verbiage promotes both censorship and propaganda in defense of its aims, which in the context of signatory states that otherwise adhere to democratic values is pretty scary stuff. There's been a lot of public commentary and criticism regarding this aspect of the pact. Some apologists think that democracies, like Canada, can just ignore this part of the document, as it's 'non-binding', after all. But can a reasonable observer imagine that the Libs, with their demonstrated attachment to moralistic stratagems (i.e. M-103, if you need an example), 

3.) You don't appear to understand the mentality of the current Lib government, 

1) OMG again with M103.  What came of it ?  Your fears are irrational.  We have actual threats, ie people machine gunning Muslims and you are worried about government statements.

3) I'm going to stop reading right there.  You don't have a solid grasp of the threats we face as a nation and there's nothing more to be said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the threat is from extremists from both sides machine gunning down innocent Canadians.....because we are not keeping score are we, or checking skin color or religion right.........But we are aware there are two sides to every conflict.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No the threat is from extremists from both sides machine gunning down innocent Canadians.....because we are not keeping score are we, or checking skin color or religion right.........But we are aware there are two sides to every conflict.

What is the 'other side' of a homicidal maniac with a machine gun ?  Use your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is the 'other side' of a homicidal maniac with a machine gun ?  Use your head.

Today it was the French police, luckily.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) OMG again with M103.  What came of it ?  Your fears are irrational.  We have actual threats, ie people machine gunning Muslims and you are worried about government statements.

3) I'm going to stop reading right there.  You don't have a solid grasp of the threats we face as a nation and there's nothing more to be said.

Apparently, the mere mention of M-103 is a trigger for you. Your overreaction to my citing it merely as an illustration of the Lib fondness for moralistic stratagems clearly seems to illustrate this. Hopefully, you've found a safe space.

Edited by turningrite
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2018 at 3:44 PM, Army Guy said:

No thats not it at all, you see it as something we can eliminate [no, but we should work to delegitimize this behavior as acceptable], I see it as human nature [yes, but so is compassion and empathy], the harder you fight it the more it grows.... [I hear the same thing is true for pedophilia... should the pedophiles not fight it?] We already have laws in place to control it, you will never eliminate it...thats just some liberal dream, and with those dreams comes retarded compacts or laws trying to eliminate the impossible, like the liberals carbon tax just another stupid liberal idea...[a carbon tax is merely a tax on externalities -- a Pigovian tax -- and has been promoted by many economiststs and politicians in many countries, both left and right]

And your right we will never agree, you have not explained any of my questions, sure you have gave me some liberal answers, like "why not", [As someone of a liberal disposition, I'm going to give liberal answers -- which you mostly ignore, but sometimes just misunderstand. I have also pointed out several times that you are arguing two mutually exclusive points at the same time, and are therefore effectively arguing against yourself ... the "why not" answer is one of those times] or it is just some white nationalist right wing  idea [well, the opposition started in white nationalist circles, and filtered through the alt-right and the right wing conspiracy factory to reach the "mainstream" right wing ... so yes] like I am somehow suppose to believe you and the rest of the liberals that "these are not the droids your looking for" but can not explain why everyone is in a rush to sign it before we have discussed it in parliament.... nope no red flags there....[Please list all the other non-binding UN pacts we have signed that were debated in Parliament ... it is not standard practice. There is not, and has never been, a requirement or even an expectation for debate of a non-binding treaty in Parliament.  In Canada, the executive branch has full power in negotiating and signing treaties, the legislative branch only gets involved if required to implement the treaty.  Up until a policy change in 2008 under the Conservatives (which I'm assuming the Liberals have not rescinded), even binding treaties affecting Canadian law were, as a matter of course, not debated] I think I will end it here....as this is going no where's, much like this compact....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm completely with those that oppose Canada signing on to this pact. I do believe that it will not benefit this country and that yes,our Liberal government will be perfectly happy to take it's marching orders from the UN at least as far as opening up the borders for mass migration is concerned.

Apparently even the US Democrats are opposed to this pact along with the Republicans. Australia,Israel,Japan to name just a few other countries that have said no to the UN.

I think this is yet another instance where Trudeau wants to hear the applause from the chorus of progressives by doing something politically correct but ultimately harmful to Canada.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-opposition-to-the-un-migrant-compact-is-broad-and-far-reaching

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-un-global-compact-for-migration-is-bad-for-canadas-sovereignty-as-scheer-says

Supporters say the deal is at the end of the day,non-binding.If so,then why take the risk of even signing on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is the 'other side' of a homicidal maniac with a machine gun ?  Use your head.

Read your statement below , and tell me if your talking about a white man killing Muslims in a mosque in Que, or all homicidal maniacs including those Muslims that have taken Canadian lives here in Canada...because when I read it I thought you where being one sided, hence why I pointed out there are two groups of homicidal maniacs to this story....one home grown and one born out of immigration policies.

Quote

We have actual threats, ie people machine gunning Muslims and you are worried about government statements.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Read your statement below , and tell me if your talking about a white man killing Muslims in a mosque in Que, or all homicidal maniacs including those Muslims that have taken Canadian lives here in Canada...because when I read it I thought you where being one sided, hence why I pointed out there are two groups of homicidal maniacs to this story....one home grown and one born out of immigration policies.

 

 

Like we were ever told what really happened at that mosque. Two shooters still became one as if by magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TTM said:

 

[no, but we should work to delegitimize this behavior as acceptable] (In case you missed it, we already have extensive laws put in place to deal with these types of behavior, unless your saying we our current laws are in adequate to deal with todays problems, toughen up laws are not the liberal way, sending them to healing lodges would better describe the liberals practices.... 

[a carbon tax is merely a tax on externalities -- a Pigovian tax -- and has been promoted by many economiststs and politicians in many countries, both left and right] WOW, in many countries, shit thats got to mean it works right, does it also mean that it is the only option available there is NO better solution....If Johnny jumped of the bridge does that mean we should all jump....So lets tax carbon which in turn will increase the price of pretty much everything, and effecting everyone whether or not they us fossil fuels or not, and then instead of doing something productive with all that extra funding like putting it into research of cleaner energy, or subsidizing existing clean energy to make it more attractive to Canadians , the liberals are just giving that tax money back ….not much of a PIGOVIAN tax if they give back what ever you paid into it....like I said a stupid idea.... 

[well, the opposition started in white nationalist circles, and filtered through the alt-right and the right wing conspiracy factory to reach the "mainstream" right wing ... so yes]  funney I was thinking the same thing, this was all a huge liberal slight of hand....to take our minds off more important items that are happening right now.....

.[Please list all the other non-binding UN pacts we have signed that were debated in Parliament ... it is not standard practice. There is not, and has never been, a requirement or even an expectation for debate of a non-binding treaty in Parliament.  In Canada, the executive branch has full power in negotiating and signing treaties, the legislative branch only gets involved if required to implement the treaty.  Up until a policy change in 2008 under the Conservatives (which I'm assuming the Liberals have not rescinded), even binding treaties affecting Canadian law were, as a matter of course, not debated]

then why are they discussing it now,why not just blow the opposition off with it is a done deal move on.... or let me rephrase that there are lots of questions but no answers , t....once again your full of shit, why are the other parties also asking why there was no debate on this topic....What is so imperative about this compact that it can not be discussed before they sign....what advantage does it give Canada....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

I'm completely with those that oppose Canada signing on to this pact. I do believe that it will not benefit this country and that yes,our Liberal government will be perfectly happy to take it's marching orders from the UN at least as far as opening up the borders for mass migration is concerned.

Apparently even the US Democrats are opposed to this pact along with the Republicans. Australia,Israel,Japan to name just a few other countries that have said no to the UN.

I think this is yet another instance where Trudeau wants to hear the applause from the chorus of progressives by doing something politically correct but ultimately harmful to Canada.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-opposition-to-the-un-migrant-compact-is-broad-and-far-reaching

Supporters say the deal is at the end of the day,non-binding.If so,then why take the risk of even signing on?

I think that democratic countries that sign such 'non-binding' global pacts are being played. Countries that generally don't receive immigrants have nothing to lose and in any case many of these countries likely wouldn't in good faith implement the provisions of a pact like the UN Compact for Migration anyway. Western countries, and particularly immigrant receiving countries, will on the other hand have their feet held to the fire by globalist nags for even the slightest perceived violations. And the English majors who run this country (Trudeau and Butts) will no doubt insist we incessantly be lectured on our global 'obligations' even though the provisions of the UNGCfM are at this point being portrayed as voluntary. Let's not forget that the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change is also a voluntary, non-binding pact but whatever the degree of adherence to that pact by other participating countries the Trudeau government never ceases to lecture us about the obligations we've undertaken as a result of our involvement in the Paris confab. We have no reason to believe that for Trudeau's crowd 'non-binding' actually means that, except for other countries. 

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2018 at 5:21 AM, scribblet said:

Sure, just like it's not binding, just like the Paris accord isn't binding - tell that to Trudeau who seems to care nothing about Canada as his gross neglect of his own country is starting to show. 

Another good piece here which should give everyone pause for thought.   Where would we house them, what land would we develop to build on, bearing in mind most people gravitate to the GTA, they sure won't want to go to Elliot Lake for instance.   The left is allready hysterical because they think Doug Ford is going to open some of the greenbelt area to development, well, if millions more come here there won't be a choice.  

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/oliver-get-ready-for-a-transformation-of-our-migration-policy? 

An estimated 250 million migrants, about 10 times the number of refugees, would have the right to move to wealthier countries offering superior social assistance. These numbers could rise dramatically, as the global population grows and more people try to escape poverty, limited opportunity and political oppression.

Trudeau is working on that as we speak. Our dear leader is going to raise the limit of new immigrants and has plans to bring in over another one million more new immigrants, legal and illegal ones also, in the next three years because the fool is just that, a bloody fool. It could be more. And I am pretty sure that his Somali immigration minister would like nothing more than to bring too Canada as many Somalis as he can. Putting a non-white person in charge of immigration in Canada is committing suicide for the host British/European Canadians.

The host British/European Canadians are on route to their own oblivion if they keep allowing the UN and Trudeau to dictate to you and me to carry on with this massive non-western immigration madness. Another thirty years of massive third world immigration and our grandchildren will be in the minority. We would be lucky if we will see all that many Canadian hosts left roaming around. According to Ezra Levant of The Rebel, Mohammed is the majority of first names given to newborns born in Missasauga, Ontario. Geez, does anyone need any more proof to see what is going on here?  Bloody sad indeed if you do not. And another four years of Trudeau and he will have taken a big bite out of that 250 million refugees living out there. The UN and G. Soros and G. Butthead really has the kid by the testicles. :unsure:

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, taxme said:

Trudeau is working on that as we speak. Our dear leader is going to raise the limit of new immigrants and has plans to bring in over another one million more new immigrants, legal and illegal ones also, in the next three years because the fool is just that, a bloody fool. It could be more.

Given that many economists are now warning of signs of a looming recession, it will be interesting to see whether the Libs will insist on carrying through on their apparent immigration obsession. The potential for a backlash will surely worsen if the growing immigrant influx leads to major cost increases and program cutbacks for Canadians. In Ontario, which houses about one-half of about all immigrants who've entered the country over the past generation, we already have a massive provincial deficit and the Ford government is moving in the direction of crafting cutbacks. As I believe the Fraser Institute estimates the net cost to taxpayers to pay for social programs to serve newcomers to be in the range of 30 or so billion dollars annually, and as most of those costs are borne by provincial governments, one can extrapolate that Ontario's deficit is substantially attributable to immigration. This generates a risk for real unhappiness and conflict should a recession further erode the province's already precarious fiscal position.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

[no, but we should work to delegitimize this behavior as acceptable] (In case you missed it, we already have extensive laws put in place to deal with these types of behavior, unless your saying we our current laws are in adequate to deal with todays problems, toughen up laws are not the liberal way, sending them to healing lodges would better describe the liberals practices.... 

[a carbon tax is merely a tax on externalities -- a Pigovian tax -- and has been promoted by many economiststs and politicians in many countries, both left and right] WOW, in many countries, shit thats got to mean it works right, does it also mean that it is the only option available there is NO better solution....If Johnny jumped of the bridge does that mean we should all jump....So lets tax carbon which in turn will increase the price of pretty much everything, and effecting everyone whether or not they us fossil fuels or not, and then instead of doing something productive with all that extra funding like putting it into research of cleaner energy, or subsidizing existing clean energy to make it more attractive to Canadians , the liberals are just giving that tax money back ….not much of a PIGOVIAN tax if they give back what ever you paid into it....like I said a stupid idea.... 

[well, the opposition started in white nationalist circles, and filtered through the alt-right and the right wing conspiracy factory to reach the "mainstream" right wing ... so yes]  funney I was thinking the same thing, this was all a huge liberal slight of hand....to take our minds off more important items that are happening right now.....

.[Please list all the other non-binding UN pacts we have signed that were debated in Parliament ... it is not standard practice. There is not, and has never been, a requirement or even an expectation for debate of a non-binding treaty in Parliament.  In Canada, the executive branch has full power in negotiating and signing treaties, the legislative branch only gets involved if required to implement the treaty.  Up until a policy change in 2008 under the Conservatives (which I'm assuming the Liberals have not rescinded), even binding treaties affecting Canadian law were, as a matter of course, not debated]

then why are they discussing it now,why not just blow the opposition off with it is a done deal move on.... or let me rephrase that there are lots of questions but no answers , t....once again your full of shit, why are the other parties also asking why there was no debate on this topic....What is so imperative about this compact that it can not be discussed before they sign....what advantage does it give Canada....

The carbon tax is just another tax dollar grab tax to be put on the heads of Canadians, and indeed, will be given to more of Trudeau's liberal/socialist program and agenda of giving more of that tax grab money away to foreigners and sex gender crap who do not deserve that money. The UN needs to be told to plainly go to hell with your migration compact. What gives our government the right to sign our names to a tax grab like this without our approval? Why is it that I am never asked as to whether I want to pay for this nonsense like this now and then. I am told to just fork over the money and shut the hell up. The UN and our politicians keep trying to tell us all that they know what is best for us. Get lost. 

Dam, I think it is truly long overdue for a tax revolt in Canada. The way our politicians have being taking our tax dollars for eons and blowing them for their own glory and useless and stupid liberal/socialist programs and agendas that have not done one thing good or great for Canada and Canadians at all.  We need to end this madness now. More tax grabs will no doubt be happening in the near future because our politicians do not know how to handle and spend our tax dollars wisely anymore.

I am so saddened when I see a party that calls itself conservative who goes along with this tax grab bullshit. Canada and Canadians are surrounded by leftist liberal political party's and politically correct puppet on a string politicians. Hundreds of billions of tax dollars blown and there appears to be no end to it. It just goes on and on. Pathetic indeed to say the least. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Given that many economists are now warning of signs of a looming recession, it will be interesting to see whether the Libs will insist on carrying through on their apparent immigration obsession. The potential for a backlash will surely worsen if the growing immigrant influx leads to major cost increases and program cutbacks for Canadians. In Ontario, which houses about one-half of about all immigrants who've entered the country over the past generation, we already have a massive provincial deficit and the Ford government is moving in the direction of crafting cutbacks. As I believe the Fraser Institute estimates the net cost to taxpayers to pay for social programs to serve newcomers to be in the range of 30 or so billion dollars annually, and as most of those costs are borne by provincial governments, one can extrapolate that Ontario's deficit is substantially attributable to immigration. This generates a risk for real unhappiness and conflict should a recession further erode the province's already precarious fiscal position.

The liberals are nothing more than a bunch of spend crazy idiots and fools who have been allowed to run and ruin Canada for all these past years. It will never change because we keep having to vote them in, liberal or conservative, every election without any other party option to vote for. The Peoples party appears to be the only one to vote for right now unless you are a socialist liberal. Conservative party's scare the hell out of liberal socialists. 

AI technology is replacing workers and to be bringing in hundreds of thousands of more new immigrants, on top of thousands of legal and illegal refugees also every year into Canada is bloody well insane. The cost to the taxpayer's already is tremendous. Montreal and Toronto are full of these legal and illegal refugees that should never have been allowed into Canada in the first place. Enough of this bs that all asylum seekers must be heard. Most are illegal criminals now and not to be considered refugees anymore. They should be sent out on the next plane at taxpayer's expense of course. But what else is new, eh?  Apparently this is done in Mexico. They get arrested and jailed and shipped out.  

Doug Ford is stuck with the past leftist NDP/liberal politics spend crazy tax dollars fiasco which have put Ontario into a bad provincial debt policy and situation. Thanks to outfits like the Fraser Institute we would never know as to how much tax dollars have been blown on new legal and illegal immigrants. The CBC will never tell us. Having to pay close to 30 billion or so to take care of these newcomers is a crime in itself. Canadians need a law that will make some of these spend crazy politicians criminals for the wasting of taxpayer's tax dollars.

While our own people are living in squalor and are going hungry most of our traitorous politicians have preferred to show more interest towards the rest of the world who dam well should not be here. Those GM former employees are now going to have to compete with those new legal and illegal newcomers and that could lead to unrest and a backlash against them very soon. Sad to say but it is long overdue for a clash. It's hard to find any host Canadian today that feels like all is good. The only ones who no doubt appear to be happy and are doing well are the ones that made it here recently and are benefiting from all the goodies that they now receive from the Canadian taxpayer's tax dollars. The cost of and towards unemployment and welfare will eventually cause a recession. Politicians spend more and taxpayer's have to pay more and in the end something has to give. It is all just a matter of time. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

In case you missed it, we already have extensive laws put in place to deal with these types of behavior

You are the one that brought this up as "scary" wording in the document. Again you are arguing against yourself.  Congrats.

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

not much of a PIGOVIAN tax if they give back what ever you paid into it.

You again demonstrate the lack of fundamental understanding of the topic necessary to even participate in a debate. Fortunately this is off topic for this thread.

2 hours ago, taxme said:

why are the other parties also asking why there was no debate on this topic....What is so imperative about this compact that it can not be discussed before they sign....

You quote the lack of debate as proof of something nefarious. The simple fact that in Canada treaties in general, and especially those not directly impacting legislation, are not debated in parliament.  These agreements are the purview of the executive branch and not the legislative.  It is not nefarious, it is standard procedure dating back to Confederation (and prior to).

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should all be resigned to the fact that Western style democracies ,as long as they exist,will be expected to ALWAYS have to shoulder the responsibility of the third world.It will mean the continued,massive financial support and enormous numbers of immigrants,legal and illegal.Never mind about education levels and skills,we have to adapt to their needs at the end of the day.How many immigrants are taken in by places like Saudi Arabia to name one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ironstone said:

We should all be resigned to the fact that Western style democracies ,as long as they exist,will be expected to ALWAYS have to shoulder the responsibility of the third world.It will mean the continued,massive financial support and enormous numbers of immigrants,legal and illegal.Never mind about education levels and skills,we have to adapt to their needs at the end of the day.

Why? Are you saying that under the globalist mindset Western countries are no longer considered sovereign entities? If so, I believe you're agreeing with the emerging far-right, which is becoming more influential in much of the democratic West.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

We should all be resigned to the fact that Western style democracies ,as long as they exist,will be expected to ALWAYS have to shoulder the responsibility of the third world.It will mean the continued,massive financial support and enormous numbers of immigrants,legal and illegal.Never mind about education levels and skills,we have to adapt to their needs at the end of the day.How many immigrants are taken in by places like Saudi Arabia to name one?

I am only concerned about Canada and Canadians and not the rest of the world especially the 3rd world. We have our own problems in Canada with people in poverty, going hungry and living on the streets to be concerned about. What is with this liberal/socialist nonsense that I must help feed, clothe and house the rest of the world anyway? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Agenda 21 II.  A non-binding UN declaration which again is being bandied about as the end of civilization.  

People who are against this are basically saying:

"I promote the concept of lying to demonize refugees, including those from wars that my country has started." 

Is Agenda 21 still a threat, though ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is Agenda 21 II.  A non-binding UN declaration which again is being bandied about as the end of civilization.  

People who are against this are basically saying:

"I promote the concept of lying to demonize refugees, including those from wars that my country has started." 

Is Agenda 21 still a threat, though ? 

If it's non binding there should be no problem with those who didn't sign it, and I'd probably prefer to be one of those.  Based entirely on my view that if JT does it, it has to be wrong. 

I have no demonizing aspirations, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, turningrite said:

 If so, I believe you're agreeing with the emerging far-right, which is becoming more influential in much of the democratic West.

Yaaassss, look its not some tin foil hat theory that globalist elites  want us to care about the rest of the world at the expense of our own. That is one reason why the UN was created. To bring about a global governance.

Canada  for all intent and purpose is a prooving ground. Canada doesn't even have a canadian identity. The closest thing to an identity Canada have is vermont. 

One of the easiest way to tell if someone is a globalist is ask if they believe in the concept of a sovereign national border? If no then they are 100 percent globalist. They're not like big foot, they exist.

Edited by paxamericana
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...