Canadian Politics

[Atomic]

16 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

They're not similar at all. Understanding disease at the genetic level improves our understanding of how to treat and mitigate those diseases. Because diseases have negative effects on the people who have them. How does that in any way compare to a person's sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not down the road science discovers there's a genetic aspect to it?

Like I just said, they are similar in that they could impact a person's decision to keep a baby or abort it.  That's all.  You are arguing against yourself unless you disagree with that simple statement, and I'm not sure whether you do because you have avoided it by claiming I'm saying something I'm not.

16 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

And besides, the only people who care about the sexual orientation of others are hardline social conservatives stuck in the past. And they're pro-life, anyway.

LOL yes, all people fit nicely into little buckets like this.  There are no people out there with progressive viewpoints who might behave differently if faced with a decision regarding their own child, nope, none at all.  You need to step outside the echo chamber some time and realize that society isn't just "enlightened liberals" vs "stupid conservatives".  There's a grey area and yeah, that's where most people reside.

[Atomic]

10 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly by anyone and with the exception of Republican (Pro-life) Congressman Scott Desjarlais (and a few others) it is the hardest decision many women have to make.  The argument you make is so cynical (and I am a cynic) about human nature that I would suggest these babies would be better off not being born in the first place.  

How can the argument be overly cynical when it has already happened, in regards to the sex of the child (aborting female babies disproportionately)?  Is it that much of a stretch to think the same issue might crop up in regards to other characteristics?

12 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

If you want to reduce abortions, do your best to make sure society takes care of kids when they are born.  Vote for parties that encourage planned parenthood, universal daycare, school meal programs etc.  Arguing about stopping abortions when kids are born into poverty, danger, addiction etc. and not first condemning political parties that abdicate responsibility or aid to these kids is disingenuous.

I don't disagree with any of this.

[Mark H.]

15 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Anyway, not a big fan of this Andrew Scheer move by the Conservatives, looks to me like a repeat of the Stanfield years in the 1970's - close but not quite good enough to unseat Trudeau.

Agreed.  Being fluently bilingual should be a minimal requirement.  I predict something similar to the Chretien era in Ottawa - which wouldn't be a bad thing if people the calibre Chretien, Martin, Axworthy et. al. were there to run the country. 

[blue_gold_84]

9 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Like I just said, they are similar in that they could impact a person's decision to keep a baby or abort it.  That's all.  You are arguing against yourself unless you disagree with that simple statement, and I'm not sure whether you do because you have avoided it by claiming I'm saying something I'm not.

LOL yes, all people fit nicely into little buckets like this.  There are no people out there with progressive viewpoints who might behave differently if faced with a decision regarding their own child, nope, none at all.  You need to step outside the echo chamber some time and realize that society isn't just "enlightened liberals" vs "stupid conservatives".  There's a grey area and yeah, that's where most people reside.

I'm trying to understand your viewpoint, so maybe try explaining that instead of resorting to your usual condescending antics and childish remarks.

Nobody's putting words in your mouth, BTW. I simply fail to understand the rationale that parents would want to abort a fetus because of its potential sexual orientation. I do not see a parallel between that and doing the same for a fetus because it showed a genetic predisposition to a serious disease, therefore affecting its quality of life.

Nobody said anything about fitting people into categories, either. The world obviously doesn't work that way, but seriously... What kind of truly progressive person would behave in the way you're trying to suggest? How could someone be pro-choice and pro-life, anyway?

There was no need to get defensive. Your "little buckets" and "echo chamber" comments would suggest you've become unnerved, apparently because I disagree with a claim you've made.

[Mark H.]

9 hours ago, Atomic said:

It's a false equivalency.  If a fetus faces an abortion, it dies 100% of the time.  If a refugee is turned away, they aren't necessarily going to die.  The situations are totally different.

Ok, the point is only relevant if 100% of refugees die.  

7 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

the word "refugee" has lost all meaning now.  My mom and grandma came to Canada as refugees from Europe, because they were displaced by the Germans during the war and had no where else to go.  But they came here legally.  A lot of the "refugees" that are entering Canada it appears are coming from places in Africa that while are crappy, I admit, they aren't oppressed either.  I get that they want a better life and I can't argue with that, but there are avenues to apply for citizenship legally.  A lot of these people seem to be just exploiting public opinion and a weak prime minister to get around the system instead of going through the legal means to get a golden ticket into the country.  At that point, why have a border at all?  And I have no idea what people trying to enter a country illegally has to do with abortion.  None whatsoever.  Seems to be taking things a bit extreme.

Well actually, those people are using a loophole that allows them to enter legally.  The loophole has existed for quite some time, when previous Prime Ministers were in power - it's just more noticeable with several crises around the world and attempted immigration bans south of the border. If you can explain how they're entering illegally, I'm willing to listen, but that's not what the immigration offices are saying.  

 

7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I agree.  There are different ways to help people that are or face becoming refugees.  There are choices people make that increase or decrease their chances of surviving.  An unborn child makes no choices.  Their heart beats, their brain develops and someone decides it was an "oops" so away it goes.  While a lot of good people who dont have the opportunity for any "oops" wait to adopt.  In most cases of abortion, its a selfish decision.  And some will now be angry I wrote that, but even if you're pro-choice, I dont see how you can disagree.

 

To be clear, I am also pro-life  I simply believe that a child trapped by civil war in Southern Sudan or killed in an air raid in Syria, has the same right to life as an unborn fetus anywhere else in the world. Sure, some refugees may have made poor choices, but you can't paint all refugees with the same brush.

[blue_gold_84]

9 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Well actually, those people are using a loophole that allows them to enter legally.  The loophole has existed for quite some time, when previous Prime Ministers were in power - it's just more noticeable with several crises around the world and attempted immigration bans south of the border. If you can explain how they're entering illegally, I'm willing to listen, but that's not what the immigration offices are saying.  

Well said. Some make it sound like this "asylum seeker" thing only started recently and therefore the current government should shoulder the blame, when the fact is it's been ongoing for years. The media, for whatever reason, only chose to begin reporting on it as being problematic since the 2016 US Presidential Election and the numbers increased.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/asylum-claimants-historical.asp

Should the government make an attempt to close a loophole in the legislation? Absolutely. But it's foolish to suggest the world refugee has lost its meaning or "a lot" of these asylum seekers are "exploiting public opinion and a weak prime minister" and then make the statement "why have a border at all?" Those are some pretty ignorant comments to make.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

. If you can explain how they're entering illegally, I'm willing to listen, but that's not what the immigration offices are saying.  

I am talking about the ones crossing at Emerson.  They are illegal.  Totally illegal.  And I don't agree with illegal immigration being tolerated.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/caught-on-camera-manitoba-u-s-border-sees-record-weekend-for-illegal-crossings-1.3333321

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

Should the government make an attempt to close a loophole in the legislation? Absolutely. But it's foolish to suggest the world refugee has lost its meaning or "a lot" of these asylum seekers are "exploiting public opinion and a weak prime minister" and then make the statement "why have a border at all?" Those are some pretty ignorant comments to make.

sigh, I should have known the always offended would wade in here and start insulting anyone with a different opinion that isn't right out of a social justice training seminar.  I have no problem with legal refugees being vetted and allowed into Canada.  That's exactly how my mother and grandmother came to this country, and I wouldn't deny that opportunity to anyone else.  What I don't get are people crossing illegally at Emerson, from the US where they've lived for years, and now claim to be "refugees", and they are allowed in to Canada.  Turn them around and send them right back.  And my weak prime minister comment was directly related to Trudeau's foolish tweet.

Edited June 1, 2017 by kelownabomberfan

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am talking about the ones crossing at Emerson.  They are illegal.  Totally illegal.  And I don't agree with illegal immigration being tolerated.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/caught-on-camera-manitoba-u-s-border-sees-record-weekend-for-illegal-crossings-1.3333321

The article does not mention the third country agreement, nor does it quote any immigration lawyers or officials. Refugees who have not been granted asylum in the United States are permitted to cross the border and try to claim in Canada. 

[blue_gold_84]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

sigh, I should have known the always offended would wade in here and start insulting anyone with a different opinion that isn't right out of a social justice training seminar.  I have no problem with legal refugees being vetted and allowed into Canada.  That's exactly how my mother and grandmother came to this country, and I wouldn't deny that opportunity to anyone else.  What I don't get are people crossing illegally at Emerson, from the US where they've lived for years, and now claim to be "refugees", and they are allowed in to Canada.  Turn them around and send them right back.  And my weak prime minister comment was directly related to Trudeau's foolish tweet.

The "always offended"...?

I'm "offended" by ignorance and foolish statements, so try again before whining about being insulted. The only person who seems offended here is you, anyway. The fact is this: people have been "illegally" entering Canada for decades, including people who resided in the US long-term. The link I included was to demonstrate the reality of the situation, which differs from what has been presented to the public. Was this on your radar prior to it making the news six or so months ago? I doubt it. The media never really bothered to cover it.

And I don't understand how a single tweet makes a PM weak.

[kelownabomberfan]

13 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

I'm "offended" by ignorance and foolish statements,

and I'm offended by your ignorant and foolish statements.  Look, I'm on thin ice here with Rich as I've had too many battles with SJW's and always ended up getting the blame, and we are only 10 days from kick-off from the first Bomber exhibition game and don't want a ban-hammer as I value this site 99% more on the Bomber info I get (given I am a long way away from Winnipeg and need every scrap of info I can get to stay informed on the team I have loved since 1975) so I'm just going to say that you and I will NEVER agree on this topic.  I respect Mark a lot and I would appreciate if he could enlighten me a bit on how he thinks that people can just walk across our border and be allowed to stay here and it be totally cool, but you and I are totally done.  I think you're ignorant and foolish, and you can think the same of me, but we're done.

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

The article does not mention the third country agreement, nor does it quote any immigration lawyers or officials. Refugees who have not been granted asylum in the United States are permitted to cross the border and try to claim in Canada. 

please elaborate.  I respect you a lot Mark, so I am open to more info from you on this topic.  I honestly don't agree with anyone just being able to walk across our border and being given asylum with no vetting, but perhaps there is more to the story and I trust you to give me that knowledge.  Thanks.

[Mark H.]

17 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

please elaborate.  I respect you a lot Mark, so I am open to more info from you on this topic.  I honestly don't agree with anyone just being able to walk across our border and being given asylum with no vetting, but perhaps there is more to the story and I trust you to give me that knowledge.  Thanks.

Refugees have been able to do this since 2002 - it's just that more are doing it now. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_Safe_Third_Country_Agreement

[Wideleft]

10 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

please elaborate.  I respect you a lot Mark, so I am open to more info from you on this topic.  I honestly don't agree with anyone just being able to walk across our border and being given asylum with no vetting, but perhaps there is more to the story and I trust you to give me that knowledge.  Thanks.

That is not what they're doing.  They still have to report to authorities, but under the Safe Third Country Agreement, they must cross the border first and then report.  Vetting/interviewing/consulting still happens - it's how they enter the building that is different.

[kelownabomberfan]

10 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Refugees have been able to do this since 2002 - it's just that more are doing it now. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_Safe_Third_Country_Agreement

A couple of questions though:

1.  What is a "refugee" - if you are in the US legally, and then your permit or visa expires, and instead of going home as you swore that you would do after your visa expired, you stay illegally in a country, and when said country enforces its laws and sends ICE people to your door to escort you to the airport, and then you run across the border of another country, in my view you are not a "refugee".  You are a criminal.

2. Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent?  The US has 11 million undocumented illegals, according to what I've read.  Now what if thanks to our weak PM welcoming them north, millions of people just walk across our border?  Are they all "refugees"?  I don't agree with that label.  In Canada we're sheltered by the fact that these illegals want to stay in the US, but what happens when they start flooding Canada?  Will we just accept them all?  For me it's about precedent.  You can't just show up here if you are illegal, and call yourself a refugee.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That is not what they're doing.  They still have to report to authorities, but under the Safe Third Country Agreement, they must cross the border first and then report.  Vetting/interviewing/consulting still happens - it's how they enter the building that is different.

ok - well that's interesting.  Are any being returned to the US after vetting?  Just curious.

[Wideleft]

17 hours ago, Atomic said:

How can the argument be overly cynical when it has already happened, in regards to the sex of the child (aborting female babies disproportionately)?  Is it that much of a stretch to think the same issue might crop up in regards to other characteristics?

I don't disagree with any of this.

Obviously, this is never a simple issue, but China has taken measures to prohibit sex-selective abortions which is impossible to enforce effectively.  Also know that murders and abandonment of female babies stemming from the one child policy was also a significant issue, so prohibiting abortions leads to other problems which are obviously not insignificant.  

The larger picture to consider is why abort and kill female fetuses and babies?  A large reason is that you have a 5000 year old patriarchal civilization where carrying on a family name is more important than raising a daughter.  I can simplify that by saying men sticking their noses into women's reproductive rights.

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

ok - well that's interesting.  Are any being returned to the US after vetting?  Just curious.

Since it's government, expect it to be a lengthy process.  I have no idea at this point what the stats are at this point.

[kelownabomberfan]

Just now, Wideleft said:

Since it's government, expect it to be a lengthy process.  I have no idea at this point what the stats are at this point.

and how much are these illegal "refugees" costing taxpayers?  Does anyone care? 

[The Unknown Poster]

23 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Obviously, this is never a simple issue, but China has taken measures to prohibit sex-selective abortions which is impossible to enforce effectively.  Also know that murders and abandonment of female babies stemming from the one child policy was also a significant issue, so prohibiting abortions leads to other problems which are obviously not insignificant.  

The larger picture to consider is why abort and kill female fetuses and babies?  A large reason is that you have a 5000 year old patriarchal civilization where carrying on a family name is more important than raising a daughter.  I can simplify that by saying men sticking their noses into women's reproductive rights.

Its interesting that while it takes both a man and a woman, only one retains rights.  We allow that because its her body.  But what if a man had the option of opting out of parenthood as well?

[Mark H.]

26 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

A couple of questions though:

1.  What is a "refugee" - if you are in the US legally, and then your permit or visa expires, and instead of going home as you swore that you would do after your visa expired, you stay illegally in a country, and when said country enforces its laws and sends ICE people to your door to escort you to the airport, and then you run across the border of another country, in my view you are not a "refugee".  You are a criminal.

2. Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent?  The US has 11 million undocumented illegals, according to what I've read.  Now what if thanks to our weak PM welcoming them north, millions of people just walk across our border?  Are they all "refugees"?  I don't agree with that label.  In Canada we're sheltered by the fact that these illegals want to stay in the US, but what happens when they start flooding Canada?  Will we just accept them all?  For me it's about precedent.  You can't just show up here if you are illegal, and call yourself a refugee.

My understanding is they are vetted and dealt with accordingly. I don't understand your weak PM comments. The safe country agreement was made in 2002. That's the crux of the issue, not whatever the PM or the POTUS are tweeting 

[Wideleft]

16 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its interesting that while it takes both a man and a woman, only one retains rights.  We allow that because its her body.  But what if a man had the option of opting out of parenthood as well?

Men do it all the time.  One quarter of single parent families have the dad as the primary caregiver.  

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/

 

[Wideleft]

42 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and how much are these illegal "refugees" costing taxpayers?  Does anyone care? 

I'll answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question: "What is the cost to taxpayers of doing nothing?"  

You don't think that shutting down a refugee program would actually stop refugees from arriving, do you?

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Men do it all the time.  One quarter of single parent families have the dad as the primary caregiver.  

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/

 

Men dont decide for women that the woman will have the child and they (the man) will raise it alone.  I guess it could happen but would be rare and either way they can't impost that decision.  We can deep-dive into the issue but I think my main point still stands.  As a pro-lifer, I want to see education and family planning made available more widely and geared towards young people.

[Wideleft]

14 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Men dont decide for women that the woman will have the child and they (the man) will raise it alone.  I guess it could happen but would be rare and either way they can't impost that decision.  We can deep-dive into the issue but I think my main point still stands.  As a pro-lifer, I want to see education and family planning made available more widely and geared towards young people.

Totally agree.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Wideleft