jonottawa

This reminds me of something I heard once ... what was it? Oh wait, I remember! http://quotepixel.com/images/quotes/life/quote-posters_4827-3.png http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI "Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the "Funky Chicken" On your 75th wedding anniversary Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much Or berate yourself either Your choices are half chance, so are everybody else's"

You're right, not all Canadians are like me. Some of us throw random (trite? really?) & childish insults at people, cry victim when someone responds to our posts in a methodical, logical way, refuse to engage intellectually or provide a single example of what they object to, and then storm off in a fit. I am eternally grateful that I'm not like that too. And for the UMPTEENTH time, I am ABUNDANTLY aware that none of the Bubble-dwellers in here will be convinced by me. YOU ARE NOT MY AUDIENCE. Thanks! Now show a little traditional Canadian class & if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71cY9Ysy5U Or at least follow my credo: http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/67/6724/R9TA100Z/posters/emily-flake-son-if-you-can-t-say-something-nice-say-something-clever-but-devastatin-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c14674320161130120100.jpg

You could start by not posting utter nonsense like that. You could start by demonstrating a SHRED of intellectual honesty. Do you honestly believe that not a single non-citizen voted in the last election? Do you honestly think that Obama's answer to the question didn't leave room for confusion, particularly to an ESL audience? (The question is at 3:22, here is the full interview:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLLt-a6dI_0 If your answer to either of the first 2 questions is yes, that begs a third question: Do you know what the word 'honestly' means? Could you please explain in what sense the editing was fake or misleading. Were they supposed to air the ENTIRE interview? Do you think that people who are already breaking the law EVERY DAY are going to hesitate to claim on some form that they're a US Citizen if that's ALL that they have to do in order to cast a vote? Now, whether hundreds (an absurdly low number that a regressive leftist might trot out, also the margin of victory in the 2000 Election) or tens of thousands (an incredibly conservative estimate,) or hundreds of thousands (my guess,) or millions of non-citizens living in the US illegally voted in 2016: That is VOTER FRAUD & that is a problem. That's why we need a national voter ID law for federal elections. If for no other reason than to give EVERYBODY a sense that American elections are legitimate.

Correction: That's Trump's America. If you wish to join us, that's up to you.

I've watched Hoarders many times but I've never seen a hoard of locusts. Anyway, given what I'm normally called around here, I will take 'locust' as a compliment, thank-you. :P As for your post, what it lacks in logic it more than makes up in enthusiasm. Requiring voter ID is not 'voter suppression'. It's what every civilized democracy on earth does, including very poor countries like India and Mexico. As for circumventing law, I'm not sure how passing laws circumvents laws. It would be just as accurate to say that Democrats have been relentless in their attempts to impose their 'morality' as state-sponsored mandate.

If anybody else is planning to have a hissy fit if I reply to one of their posts, please let me know now so that I don't risk offending you. TIA :P

If you lived in a desperately poor/primitive country with a weak government (or no government) I think you'd see it differently. When you consider the alternative (and no, the alternative in an environment of extreme scarcity will NOT be 2nd wave feminism, sorry.) It beats some kind of Mad Max existence where the strong prey on the weak. It's well suited for the environment in which it has historically thrived.

More sanctimonious melodramatic armchair psychoanalysis and conspiracy theories, oh my! Move over Keith Olbermann, Dr. Phil and Alex Jones, here comes Barrister Mike! To the extent Ryan is groveling it's because he's a traitor who tried to defeat Trump and now will have to deal with a President Trump. I'm curious to see if Ryan helps Trump pass Trump's 100 day agenda (or instead keeps promoting his own Randian/Libertardian #BetterWay.) I certainly don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will, (he might well sabotage efforts behind the scenes) though I obviously hope he does. I don't trust Ryan or like Ryan but obviously President Trump will have to find a way to work with him if it's possible. Pence might help here. Romney in cabinet would (presumably) help enormously as well. Romney is 'sucking up to him' because he's another traitor who tried even HARDER to defeat Trump & in spite of that Trump (being the forgiving and benevolent leader that he is) is still giving him serious consideration to be Secretary of State (absent the betrayal, he'd obviously be tapped for the nomination already.) My inclination is of course to not want Mitt anywhere near this administration (or perhaps in a portfolio like VA where he can bring his vaunted organizational prowess to bear without shaping policy) but it's not like the Republican bench is all that deep (especially once you exclude all the war criminals & neo-cons) & you'd like a household (and fairly popular) name at State if possible. Mitt is one of those folks who needs EXTREME VETTING & President Trump's giving him a close look. When McCain ran against Dubya, Dubya's campaign knowingly spread a dirty lie in South Carolina that McCain (who had just won the NH primary) had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman (much like Bill Clinton seems to have ACTUALLY done.) Dubya won the South Carolina primary and the rest is history. McCain endorsed Dubya that year. This year, Hillary colluded with the DNC to rig the primary against Bernie. Bernie STILL almost beat her (and likely would have won without the collusion.) Bernie endorsed Hillary. So PLEASE spare me this claptrap about how mind-boggling it is that people who signed a pledge to support the nominee supported the nominee. That's what politicians DO. The UNUSUAL STORY is that some of them (Jeb, Kasich) broke that pledge, not that most of them (Christie, Rubio and even eventually Cruz (who dished it out every bit as good as he got it) and Fiorina) demonstrated integrity by honoring their commitment. Goofy and melodramatic language aside, the 'calculus' for ALL politicians is simple when a new president is elected. You show respect and deference to a new president of your party. What president was that NOT true for, pray tell? For someone who thinks a constitution should be interpreted so liberally that it is essentially meaningless, Mike sure seems to 'want it to have value' all of a sudden. Mike's philosophy is 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, ABORTION RIGHTS!' or 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, GAY MARRIAGE!' It's the regressive left who destroyed the constitution & if Trump does what Mike's so fearful he will do, it's on THEM. It's funny, because I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes is that he truly wants to govern in the middle & by rejecting his gracious overtures the regressive left will force him to instead be the boot that America's ass sorely needs. So keep fear-mongering, please! Keep rioting in the streets. Keep burning the American flag. Keep demonizing police officers, whistle-blowers, soldiers, patriots and Trump supporters (sorry if that's redundant.) Keep contesting the results of a historic landslide win. Keep exposing yourselves for what you truly are. Let me know how that works out for you. I wish I had the time to parse all of Mike's posts like this but I hope I've demonstrated (with this rebuttal and my other lengthy rebuttals) that he repeatedly injects a significant amount of 'hot air' into his commentary. I think someone smart enough to be a partner in a law firm PROBABLY does that sort of thing deliberately (and not inadvertently,) but I could be wrong, I often am. I prefer discussions with people who don't repeatedly try to get away with those sorts of shenanigans. (Especially when they tend to make really LENGTHY posts and then (if you bother to make the effort to fact-check them) ignore the rebuttals that shred their misrepresentations.) That's why I generally try to make my case as concisely & unhistrionically as possible. On the bright side, I'd like to give Mike a little crrredit. He made a LENGTHY post without once misusing the words bigot or bigotry! Way to go, Mike! Baby steps. Let's all pray that Mike gets well again soon. And that our beloved Gatlinburg (another disastrous response to a disaster from Obama & his administration) rebuilds. And that President Trump is half as effective at Making America Great Again as Mike is afraid he will be. Amen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMnkmlrJ9GA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRmtpau8sOU Fact check rating: GATLINBURG! (That's one level beyond PANTS ON FIRE!) This post was pretty 'creative' even by Mike's standards. Nobody who lives in a country with a constitution with a NOTWITHSTANDING clause (which basically means that the government can ignore or override many sections of the constitution) should be trashing other country's constitutions or systems of government. The United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is the greatest legal document ever written (particularly when you consider when it was written) & only a fairly recent tradition of judicial activism by the Court's regressive left wing has imperiled it, and imperiled the greatest nation in the history of our planet in the process. The McCarthy era was a response to a massive number of communists/Marxists infiltrating America during the Cold War, when capitalist America faced an existential struggle against Communist Soviet Union. Back then we took that sort of thing seriously, and it's good that we did. It might have bought us an extra decade or two of liberty and prosperity. Were some constitutional rights infringed on in certain cases? Yes. Do most countries not have a police powers (state of emergency) type clause in cases such as this? I would assume so, though I'm not an international legal expert. Were the violations of the Constitution by Lincoln during the Civil War (which set the precedent that the federal government can occasionally ignore the Constitution because reasons) orders of magnitude more egregious? Certainly. Canada interred Japanese too. It was an understandable reaction at the time. Again, nations fighting existential wars tend to (understandably) be more pragmatic & authoritarian for the duration of the conflict. Self preservation trumps 'Muh civil rights.' If you want an incomprehensible Supreme Court decision, I'd go with Roe LONG before I got to Dred Scott (not to be confused with Judge Dredd.) A court decision can be legally valid even if it's morally wrong. I could probably find dozens of crazy moonbat Canadian SC decisions too, but I don't really want to rustle my own jimmies unnecessarily so I won't bother. If you want to talk 'profoundly bizarre': Canada has the QUEEN (as in hereditary monarch) of a foreign country that isn't even a sovereign country anymore as its official head of state (& on all our currency.) So careful with the rocks in that glass house of yours, Mike. Now, as for Mike's inaccurate misrepresentation of SCOTUS appointments: Supreme Court nominees used to be selected (regardless of the party of the President) based on who the most experienced and qualified nominee was who would do his best to interpret the Constitution based on original intent and precedent. Republicans STILL generally approach it that way. It's the Democrats who mucked all that up and politicized the process. As for the current court, SCOTUS has been a mess since Bush v. Gore. That seemed to open the floodgates to some of the most dreadful decisions (Citizens United, Obergefell v Hodges) since Roe. Horrible appointees like Sotomayor (wise Latina) & Ginsburg (publicly attacking Trump, an offense that should have gotten her thrown off the bench) certainly didn't help. Trump's (list of) potential nominees are highly experienced, qualified & respected and I hope he has the opportunity to make SEVERAL appointments (why stop at 4? I'm hoping for 6.) If a president appoints qualified justices who will interpret the constitution based on precedent and on the framers' intent, then the check afforded by the SCOTUS is very REAL. President Trump will do that. If anyone reading this truly believes that the major media (mainstream media) fawns over Donald Trump, the most unfairly and viciously vilified major party nominee (and now President-Elect) in my lifetime (really of all time, but Goldwater perhaps comes close,) please seek professional help. Seriously. Or at least delete your Facebook account and turn off your regular source of 'news' for the next month & TRY to deprogram yourself. If you want to see 'mainstream media' fawning over a politician (or promoting a specific ideology,) please tune in to the CBC. Or read almost any of their stories on the Internet and then read the comments almost uniformly blasting the transparently biased coverage in the story. For Mike, a Swedish person who wants to preserve & protect the centuries-old (and almost universally highly admired and respected) Swedish nation, society, culture & people from hordes of Muslim economic migrants is an 'abhorrent raving white nationalist'. For me, that person is someone whose rights need to be protected. I'm not sure where Bannon would fall on that, but if he agrees with me, then he would indeed be someone in power who 'will protect your rights.' (Unless you mean imaginary (invented by the regressive left) 'rights', of course.) Genocide and ethnic cleansing (remember Bosnia? Or Tibet?) used to be things we opposed once upon a time. Trump will indeed promote law & order, as every president before Obama & hopefully every president after Obama did/will. Enforcing law & order is the primary duty of ANY government. He will doubtless appoint a SecDef who will do what he can to undo the damage inflicted on the once-great US military by Obama (and to a lesser extent Dubya) & make America's military proud, mighty, feared and respected again. All of that is GOOD news. If Mike doesn't think Trump is Hitler then why bring up von Papen? Oh, just to be melodramatic, I see.

You think it's somehow "more relevant to point out" the obvious fact that Donald Trump doesn't get to choose who the House Speaker & Senate Majority leader are because?

These are people who have already fled poor/war-torn countries. They aren't trying to escape. They're looking for the biggest sucker they can find & they found it here (and in Sweden, UK & Germany.) Let them move to an equally poor but less 'barbaric' country if what they're trying to escape is barbarism and they're not willing to fight. (Western countries could easily finance such a program.) 'Pure hatred': Translator reveals how Muslim refugees want to 'Islamize' Germany People work hard and build nations for their posterity. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Not so that some random person out of the 7 billion+ souls on the other side of the globe decides that 'Hey that's a better place to raise my family because I don't have to work if I move there and they'll give me a nice place to live and lots of free stuff and pay for me to have as many babies as I want.' Comparing this attitude to the brutal conditions in Ireland and the brutal conditions the Irish experienced in America is insulting. The Irish would have REJOICED at the living conditions in a Turkish refugee camp. Anyway, I can already tell you and I won't see eye to eye on this so have the last word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmp-xmguqh4

Just to be clear, you were not the Mike that post was directed at. I think I've answered your question already, quite clearly, on this page. ... Edit: I'll add this: These are the type of people I advocate NOT allowing to move to Canada. (If you read the comments, a lot of people agree with me.) "A year after arriving in Canada, the first wave of resettled Syrian refugees is about to face a whole new round of challenges. December begins the so-called Month 13, when the government-sponsored refugee package, with its monthly living allowance, ends for many families. They either have to support themselves or fall back on provincial social assistance. ... But Tonbari, 30, is struggling to pick up enough English to secure work in the construction business. Between language classes and getting his family settled, he hasn't found a job — and there's another baby on the way." This sort of appalling abuse of Canada's generosity (and naiveté and narcissistic Trudeauian virtue signaling) is what makes my blood boil. And it's entirely predictable. These aren't the immigrants of old, willing to sacrifice and work hard to create a brighter future in a sparsely populated New World teeming with (incredibly arduous and low-paying) jobs, these are opportunistic people looking for free stuff. Enough already! ... What Canada currently allows doesn't mean it ought to be allowed. Before the 1960's we had a very sensible immigration policy. And yet they changed that policy. Without a theocracy, or robots or AI even!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ksWKOy665o

Now, as for Islam. I read this article last night and I found it fascinating. Particularly the section that begins about half-way down: A Personal View of Sharia. I can see why the religion is so appealing and successful. I personally find many aspects of the religion appealing. So I have nothing against Islam per se. I just don't think it is compatible with Western beliefs. And so I strongly oppose flooding Western countries with Muslims, hoping against all history and evidence that Muslims and kafirs will peacefully live side by side in the long run. Let them live peacefully in their nations & let us live peacefully in ours. And if we want to visit back and forth, FANTASTIC! This kind of statement would have been greeted with 'Well, duh.' a hundred years ago but for some reason it needs to be stated (and is even attacked as intolerant) in the current year. Islamic State claims responsibility for Ohio University attack

The conversation seems to have drifted off into the weeds (imo.) I appreciate barmar's gracious reply to my last post. I'll just summarize my own position on immigration, which I think is close to Trump's (for those who pretend Trump's position is incoherent. It's only 2 pages long and summarizes ALL of his priorities for his first 100 days, maybe give it a read?) A nation has the right to enforce its borders and the duty to enforce its laws. A nation's immigration law should serve the national interest of that nation and the best interest of that nation's citizens. A nation has the right to deport people who snuck across its borders (or overstayed visas) and live there illegally. A nation has the right to deny social services to people living within its borders illegally. A nation has the right to force its large employers to ensure the legal status of its employees. http://sendablequotes.com/quotes/57520.jpg Now, if you disagree with any of that, you don't really believe in the idea of nationhood at all, imo. Which is entirely your right, of course, but it would be a courtesy and save time if you'd just come right out and SAY it. Now, my own belief, which may or may not (it probably doesn't) reflect Trump's is that 1st world countries should dramatically REDUCE immigration. I believe that for the following reasons: 1. Environmental (lower population means less environmental damage) 2. Economic (as manufacturing and other good jobs disappear, we don't need a large influx of workers as we did in the past when jobs were plentiful.) 3. Cultural (I want to preserve my culture in my homeland. I don't want people from foreign cultures moving to my country & trying to make my country's culture better reflect their culture. If they love their culture as much as I love my culture, they should stay in their homelands where I fully support their right to preserve their culture.) We should learn from the mistakes of the UK or Sweden or Germany & not flood our nation with people who don't share our culture or our values. It's much easier to change our mind later & let more people in (if we can see that this experiment has succeeded in other countries) than it is to get rid of people once we've let them in.

Captain Diversity has spoken! Mike, you crack me up. You present a silly argument with a GIANT hole in it & then you ONCE AGAIN do the old 'I bet you're going to point out this giant hole in my argument because you're so easily predictable.' Well I won't point it out, it's there for everyone to see. I'm just gonna leave this here. :P All emphasis mine.

We've got Sharia councils operating in the UK TODAY. I'm glad to hear there's no Sharia in Indonesia. It's a shame these folks haven't been informed. I'm not sure why you bring up Turkey's Muslim domination 'since roughly 1077' if they had Sharia there until it was abolished in 1924. For now (and for how long?) that's still the case, but one exception from a country that borders then-Christian & mighty (when it abolished Sharia) Europe hardly disproves the rule. Here's a great article by Canada's future Prime Minister, Lauren Southern: You’re either an Islamophobe or a misogynist. Pick one "According to progressive logic, you’d have to be an Islamophobe or a misogynist."

I asked you some questions. If you ever tire of throwing meaningless insults at me, perhaps you'll answer them. Here's Webster's Unabridged A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. I am none of these things. How 'bout you?

It sounds like you're accusing me of being too tolerant (cultural relativism) and not tolerant enough (advocating war over cultural differences) at the same time. Please pick one and I'll try to answer you.

Now, unlike Mike, I am not uniformly intolerant of intolerance. If people from foreign cultures want to do things that I find bizarre or unsettling in THEIR countries, that's THEIR business. I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. But nations have EVERY right to exclude people who are completely incompatible with their culture & customs. That's the whole POINT of nations in the first place! We used to fight WARS over this stuff but we've been brainwashed & shamed into surrendering without a fight. na·tion ˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun noun: nation; plural noun: nations a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

It is absurd to pretend that all religions are equal on that score. So why do you? And why do you condemn Trump for rejecting that pretense? Do you agree with this jpg or not? If not, how do you disagree? What's your position on Islamic migration to Western Countries? Should it be unlimited? Do you favor open borders for anyone who can cross into Europe? Do you want your descendants to live under Sharia law? Sharia Law is alive and well in the UK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

Stay tuned. Here's a good NSFW video on group polarization, social comparison theory & ethnomasochism. It explains the psychological underpinning of the Groupthink that pervades the regressive left these days. NSFW (strong profanity by comic performing a routine) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2gaSCJWnAE

Mike's argument seems to be: I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY sure that I'm right so it's okay that I'm a bigot. What bigot in history ever DIDN'T think that was true of herself? The capacity for self-delusion of some people is truly astounding. It reminds me of the old "Grumpy Old Man" skits on Saturday Night Live (back when SNL was funny on occasion.) In my day, we didn't have these fancy 'dictionaries' with their 'words' and 'meanings' that we all agreed on, ... It also reminds me of the commenters in this story. They're just as great in number & just as sure that they're right as Mike's crowd is. And just as wrong.

Repeating myself: "“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”" So many people deliberately abuse the word 'bigotry' or 'bigot' nowadays. Much like they abuse the word 'racist' which has come to mean 'white person I disagree with.' Such behavior is shameful. It's simply substituting bullying for rational discourse. And good on Ken for pointing it out. Repeating myself: It is not my goal to convince anybody on this thread of anything. It is merely to put forth rational arguments & post clever images & videos. I learned long ago that you can't win an argument, no matter how decisively you won the argument.