PCB

No it's not. Norway's economy is grounded on a free market system.

how can you be racist against a religion? It's a question of religious freedom, not racism. And PCB, our board constitutional lawyer, said that what Harper was doing was constitutionally wrong. And he was right. But it wasn't racist. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I also don't think anyone has been tied into an "ideological pretzel." My issue was that is was not and is not fair to treat Syrian refugees as if they are categorically antithetical to our country and that there was a false dichotomy being created between having 25,000 refugees here this year and there not being proper security checks done. That hasn't been established, at all. Moreover, I'm not sure what to think about the no unaccompanied men policy, but I'm not definitively for it simply because Trudeau has announced it. If anyone is interested, the New York Times posted an article on the US security process for syrian refugees. I imagine Canada's is somewhat similar, but I'll guess we'll find out more tomorrow.

No you're facts were unsubstantiated. This has been demonstrated. That you refused to post a source, demonstrates how little you understand about debate. And when I went to the effort of reading your source, it did not support what you said. I agree there is a middle ground, and common sense is a term that has little to no meaning in this context. That you see fit to cast doubt on people much more versed in areas then you because of common sense, demonstrates how little you understand. I've been civil despite the fact you have insulted and acted childish towards me in this and other threads. But you have posted statements that are demonstrably xenophobic. You clearly take pride in keeping up to date on world events and attempting to understand the underlying issues. Rather then skewering the internet, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on topics like the history of immigration in Canada, what a legitimate source is and how to form an argument because you have demonstrated an understanding of none of these areas.

Your arrogance is palpable. Your "common sense" does not outweigh another's opinion, or for that matter, fact. How do you not feel embarrassed to say I "did not counter your argument?" I demonstrated the facts you presented regarding homosexuality and anti-semitism are unsubstantiated. "One of the Paris killers was a refuge" so we should treat an entire people differently. That is what you are saying. Dude, you need to think about the principle you're expounding right now. It has no place here.

Nope! Is it too much for you? You don't believe it? It's crazy but true. Don't even need polls. Use common senseSyrians being radical? Can't be. Lol "Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia. Nope. Because you neither want to apply common sense or use the procided facts. So you lose. Thanks! Back to my wine. http://www.therebel.media/poll_syrian_refugees_hate_jews_gays It's an Ezra Levant site but he included the poll TUP was referring to. Took me 10 seconds to find. Google is your friend. I just read the poll. It contains absolutely 0 information about Syrian refugees views about homosexuality or Judaism. None. That’s why I couldn’t find it. In fact, there is no empirical evidence provided that supports that article’s claim that “41% are jew-hating, America hating bigots,” or that 97% are-gay hating, probably woman-hating bigots.” The language itself demonstrates the sentiment underlying this article though, “jew-hating,” “gay-hating,” “probably woman-hating bigots.” No empirical, legitimately done polling, would use language such as this. But who needs empirical evidence anyways, as Unknown said, we “Don’t even need polls,” “common-sense” is enough. And when he did provide this “evidence,” he exaggerated the percentage of individuals, in this non-existence poll, who hate Jewish people by 20%. Not to mention he modified the percentages by adding + to each one. Why if he is trying to engage in a debate rooted in objectivity and common sense, is he exaggerating the, again, nonexistent percentages or trying to distort how high they are? That is what one what does when they are trying to prove a point. In this case, that point is that Syrian refugees are incompatible with his conception of our country. And to ISO and KBF, I am not against security measures, those are clearly necessary. But that is beyond the scope of what I’ve pushed back against. I’ve countered Unknown’s argument that Syrian refugees are nearly categorically incompatible with Canada. So I stand by what I’ve said previously. And quite frankly to post and allow unsubstantiated information to be proliferated like this is unfair to Muslims and refugees.

Nope! Is it too much for you? You don't believe it? It's crazy but true. Don't even need polls. Use common sense Syrians being radical? Can't be. Lol "Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia.

Post the link.

I could push back on what you said in multiple ways, but, for the sake of argument, please post your sources.

I did and the implication is that because of certain individuals, we should categorically close our borders to an entire group of people, Syrian refugees. This interpretation is supported by the post you made and I quoted below. If I've misunderstood, it's because you lack clarity in your writing, not because I lack common sense.

No, I just don't paint entire groups of people with the same brush or justify treating entire groups of people differently because of certain individuals within that group.

Speak for yourself when you say this and please don't use the pronoun "our," because you certainly don't speak for all of us. And the principal that you're expounding, that we should discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain individuals sharing commonalities with that group, is a dangerous one.

Hoping for someone who has clearly made a football relevant again in Ottawa, which is only a good thing for the league to get injured. Classy.

If you want to post lies and utter bullshit about Harper, or anyone for that matter, be prepared to be called a jack-arse! That's just how I roll. If you don't like it, don't read my posts. And better yet, don't post a bunch of bullshit. I don't think I called you a loon for posting all of that legal baffle-gab about the niquab. If I did I apologize. Defining things you disagree with as "bullshit" and things that at least have an element of truth "lies," and then using that as a proxy to name call the people behind those statements does not make them jack arses, like you label them though. It means you disagree with them. Perfect example is you calling the posts I made earlier "baffle-gab." What I posted is the law. You can debate the merits of said law, but it is the law. It's not bullshit, a lie or "baffle-gab," just because you don't like it or because it proves something you said incorrect.

KBF, I like reading some of the political discussion in this section, but I don't understand why you can't seem to have a conversation without calling the person who disagrees with you a fool, a loon, a jack-arse or some kind of other insult. Especially, after you criticized liberals for thinking they're so much smarter than everyone else in another thread.

Frankly, as defined by our Constitution (the supreme law of our Country), you don't understand what the term equality means. Because it certainly does not mean, you taking away her choice to wear a niqab, and it is her choice, as she has said. In fact, the plaintiff has said one of the reasons she came to Canada was because of the freedom to practice her beliefs. Sure, while some woman may be forced to wear it, she is not one of them. And our law would not permit a woman being forced to wear a niqab by her husband. But, all that matters, in her case, is herself and her beliefs. The fact that your solution to women having zero choice to not wear a niqab is to give them zero choice to wear it is ironic. Again, the fact that you say we shouldn't care about someones beliefs or cultures because to you its improper just demonstrates you don't understand what the terms multicultural and equality mean when you state you support/believe in those values.