For those who vote conservative.

Again I will write about left/right media. There is no such classification, I used to believe it, but no longer.

You see, it is two markets for which every news rag/website/or social media post happens across your desk designed for your point of view or side. Quite simply each side panders to a market "buck a beer/gender issues", that writes/appeases to that market that consume and get traffic.

That traffic equates to share performance of the company, media (not news, as there is no such thing in Canada anymore) depends on market share and shareholder appeasement. CBC is out of that picture with full government funding, Lamestream media is now part of the 575 million media slush fund in which the Torstar gets 113K per day in subsidies.

No such thing in CanadaStan as free press and Section 2A of Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a free press, along with free speech - neither of which you have anymore.

The Sheep are well asleep - and placated to blinding influence of government into our "rights", this is exactly what the government wants - Sheep. 1984 actually was achieved with the signing New Constitution in 1982 and Signed of the New Charter of rights and freedoms in 1985 - we are here in 2020.

Orders in Council - OIC - Are the equivalent of communist dictatorship - end of story. Stay sleepy sheep, stay sleepy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Seems you don't want to accept the truth of the costs associated with refugees. Yes the facts are from Canadian sources of just refugee costs. You may think it's the right thing to do but others that are working tax payers may feel bringing in more people to drive our countries deficit billions deeper into the hole is not the right thing to do.

---

I absolutely accept there is a cost associated with refugees. I even broke it down for you how much it cost a single Canadian in 2016 to house all 47 000 of them. What I don't accept inflated numbers based on you adding the cost of illegal asylum seekers to actual refugees to support your narrative that refugees are getting a golden handshake.

You are whinging about helping someone get a leg up and becoming a productive member of our society when they have nothing. You are under a delusion that a refugee is a massive expense that is incurred on us without any kind of return on that investment.

However, I suspect there is more to your reluctance to help refugees than money. So I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. You should go find a refugee family and tell them to get out of Canada. Make sure you look the kids right in the eye when you say that to them. Tell them it is too expensive for you to make sure they have a safe place to live for a year or until they get on their feet. Order them back to whatever bad situation they came from. Would that satisfy your economic issues? How about the homeless? They are a drain on our resources. Best have them next on your list of things that cost you money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I absolutely accept there is a cost associated with refugees. I even broke it down for you how much it cost a single Canadian in 2016 to house all 47 000 of them. What I don't accept inflated numbers based on you adding the cost of illegal asylum seekers to actual refugees to support your narrative that refugees are getting a golden handshake.

You are whinging about helping someone get a leg up and becoming a productive member of our society when they have nothing. You are under a delusion that a refugee is a massive expense that is incurred on us without any kind of return on that investment.

However, I suspect there is more to your reluctance to help refugees than money. So I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. You should go find a refugee family and tell them to get out of Canada. Make sure you look the kids right in the eye when you say that to them. Tell them it is too expensive for you to make sure they have a safe place to live for a year or until they get on their feet. Order them back to whatever bad situation they came from. Would that satisfy your economic issues? How about the homeless? They are a drain on our resources. Best have them next on your list of things that cost you money.

---

It's not our responsibility to take care of foreigner's that come here with nothing to offer, we have enough freeloaders already and don't need more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

It's not our responsibility to take care of foreigner's that come here with nothing to offer, we have enough freeloaders already and don't need more.

---

So stop your whinging and go tell the freeloaders they can't come here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

It's not our responsibility to take care of foreigner's that come here with nothing to offer, we have enough freeloaders already and don't need more.

---

Yes we do lol.

I know of many my age that just do nothing. Lots of scum just rather party for life then actually do something like working lol.
The young generation now are getting lazier and want everything given to them for nothing. The work ethics on some are of these younger folks are just horrible [emoji1787]

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

So stop your whinging and go tell the freeloaders they can't come here.

---

Your the only one bellyaching about other opinions...lmao. Why don't you get it, many people do not agree with our current immigration system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I absolutely accept there is a cost associated with refugees. I even broke it down for you how much it cost a single Canadian in 2016 to house all 47 000 of them. What I don't accept inflated numbers based on you adding the cost of illegal asylum seekers to actual refugees to support your narrative that refugees are getting a golden handshake.

You are whinging about helping someone get a leg up and becoming a productive member of our society when they have nothing. You are under a delusion that a refugee is a massive expense that is incurred on us without any kind of return on that investment.

However, I suspect there is more to your reluctance to help refugees than money. So I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. You should go find a refugee family and tell them to get out of Canada. Make sure you look the kids right in the eye when you say that to them. Tell them it is too expensive for you to make sure they have a safe place to live for a year or until they get on their feet. Order them back to whatever bad situation they came from. Would that satisfy your economic issues? How about the homeless? They are a drain on our resources. Best have them next on your list of things that cost you money.

---

I don't think it's a matter of refugees ... I think it's a matter of how immigrants come in ... what I am suspicious of, is if the government brings them in and offers all kinds of support ... (1) are they bringing in the right people (ones that will lead to employment and contributions to economy) and (2) do they provide a model that will give them incentive to go out and seek employment? As you know, these are two very important factors, that certainly are analyzed to death when a private sponsorship application is considered by the government.

So, with that, I invite you to review this report from Stats Canada - all you really need to do is read the short Overview at the top. Let me know what you think ...

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../00001-eng.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Why argue with me, the LAW says it is so. The courts back up those laws. I will make it simple so you will understand....You do not become a father until the baby is born. That is why when a man finds out about the pregnancy he says, 'I am GOING to be a father'. He does not say, 'I am a father', why? because until the birth he is not. After the birth, his rights of fatherhood kick in. Until that point he has no rights over the fetus.

---

Don't confuse rights with responsibilities and how we got them.

Under the abortion Act, men weren't given any rights.
The divorce act was only a year old at the time, medical procedures were much more dangerous than today and a woman's primary role was....well, you know, so it's not hard to see why men/fathers weren't included in the act.

Long after the Abortion Act was enacted, women were given the right to enforce responsibility upon men for the birth of their child, born or unborn and rightfully so.

Times have changed, fathers are much more responsible in their child's development and deserve better recognition, period.
When the 1987 Family Responsibility Act was introduced, society accepted that you could indeed force an individual to alter their life for the care/support of their child, including the unborn. 34(1)(h) Ontario’s Family Law Act permits a court to order “payment of expenses in respect of a child’s prenatal care and birth”. This confirms that you're a father before birth and responsible.

There's an argument to be made that the Abortion Act is outdated and a father's rights should extend to some prenatal circumstances.

I'm not against abortions. I understand the obvious need in today's society but almost all of those needs can and should be dealt with in a respectable time frame.
If given the question, l think the majority of society would be against any late term abortions if it's simply because it's an inconvenience to the mother. We've certainly decided that's an unacceptable excuse from a father, regardless of the hardship on one's life that might follow.

A willing father deserves the option to have his child if the mother chooses to carry to late term and wants to abort for no other reason than her future sacrifices.
That would give merit to the rights of a father for their child's birth and place some level of responsibility during a woman's pregnancy.

I believe the abortion act will eventually be revisited in the future.

Here's my prediction.
Two married women will flip a coin to see who carries for the nine months, they'll separate prior to birth and a late term abortion scenario will play out. A court case will ensue, making it to the Supreme Court and a decision will force the government to address the Act.
That's not that far fetched. The pandora's box has been opened, it's only a matter of time before they step into mens shoes and see the level of hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Your the only one bellyaching about other opinions...lmao. Why don't you get it, many people do not agree with our current immigration system?

---

Debating your ignorant comments with facts isn't bellyaching my friend. You were the one who first started tearing down refugees by complaining they get so much.

Many people are fine with helping refugees get settled in this country. A minority don't agree with our current immigration system. Why can't you get that?

This country was built by refugees and they continue to contribute to it despite you clearly showing that you dislike the fact they get some help by the rest of the country when they come here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

I don't think it's a matter of refugees ... I think it's a matter of how immigrants come in ... what I am suspicious of, is if the government brings them in and offers all kinds of support ... (1) are they bringing in the right people (ones that will lead to employment and contributions to economy) and (2) do they provide a model that will give them incentive to go out and seek employment? As you know, these are two very important factors, that certainly are analyzed to death when a private sponsorship application is considered by the government.

So, with that, I invite you to review this report from Stats Canada - all you really need to do is read the short Overview at the top. Let me know what you think ...

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../00001-eng.htm

---

When we are speaking of refugees, normally we don't get a choice about which ones we get. Legal immigrants sure, we want the best we can get. However, we want to help refugees and legal immigrants get on their feet as soon as possible because if the quicker that happens, the quicker they won't need to keep getting aid. Both groups have different challenges to get fiscally independent. At the end of the day, any government assistance is gone after one year or when the refugee starts to work whichever comes first.

As for the link, the number Syrian refugees was large but I didn't realize that only 53% were on government assistance so the number of refugees getting more benefits than some think isn't all of them. I did realize that the Syrian refugees did take longer than normal to get employed because of the illegal immigrants coming in and tying the system up, that situation is hardly the fault of the refugees. Taking out any frustrations we have with this government on refugees is wrong.