Americans seeking immigration data jam Canadian website

[Perinquus]

Babies.

You know, if they want to leave, that's their right, and I'll be the last to deny it. But I just can't help feel contempt for spoiled brats in adult bodies who'll go away and pout and sulk because their candidate lost. It is not like Hitler is in power, some people are being forced to wear yellow stars on their clothes, and laws to appropriate the property of certain groups of citizens are being seriously discussed. The storm clouds of fascist oppression are not gathering overhead. This is not like Germany in the 1930s, and we'd better get out while the getting is good.

This ought to be an entry in the dictionary under "overreaction".

What a deeply ignorant and baseless strawman predicated on nothing but hollow, kneejerk nationalism.

Maybe some people just decided that Canada is more in line with their values, beliefs, and way of life (especially to pot smokers and gays here) and would prefer to live in such a place.

But nah, its got to be people fearing a fascist coup.

Yeah, and it's just a big fucking coincidence that they waited till right after the election, and that the article cited in this thread's opening post features quotes like:

Shirin Mukherjee, a legal consultant in Windsor, said American clients who had been waiting to make a decision until after the Nov. 2 vote, are now calling and telling her to proceed with immigration paperwork.

"They're telling me, 'now is the best time,' and definitely one of the reasons is Mr. Bush," she said.

No, I'm just being irrational, of course. The fact that they fucking cite Bush's re-election as a reason means nothing, of course.

[SirNitram]

Oh cry me a fucking river. I'm an atheist with fundie relatives. You think I haven't felt any backlash from that? Yes there is some intolerance. Guess what? Anywhere you go on earth you are going to encounter some. That's the nature of things. The question is whether or not intolerance has risen to such levels that you genuinely have to fear that if you don't want your kids to be indoctrinated into bigots themselves (as Mike suggested was a realistic fear), you'd better move to another country.

Let's see... At least forty percent of the country is indoctorined.. Could there be a non-zero percent chance of risk? Maybe you're just really bad at math, that might be it...

I'd like someone to show me some evidence of this. I really would, because in a country where openly gay characters and interracial relationships and minority leading men and leading women regularly feature in popular entertainment, and where I personally know openly gay men and women who are simply not suffering any overt discrimination or career obstructions, I see precious little evidence that things are that bad.

You lie very poorly, Perinquis. How many states passed laws discriminating specifically against Gays on Tuesday again? It's not a hard question, I'm sure you can find it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to frantically dodge around it, too.

And I love how intolerance with you always reverts back to race. Have racial situations improved? Yes. But are you actually enough of a sentient being to process the idea there's more to intolerance than just racism?

For blacks in the south in the pre-civil rights era, I can certainly understand why they'd think things were so bad they'd be better off somewhere else. Ditto for gays anywhere in the U.S. in that era. Though the U.S was hardly alone in that during those days - Alan Turing, remember, killed himself because it was illegal to be homosexual in Britain back then, and he was about to be prosecuted for it. This, however, is not the same time, and there simply isn't much evidence things are that bad. We don't enforce laws like that against gays anymore, and I see no evidence we are about to start enforcing any. I see a lot of people sneering at me for suggesting that things really aren't that bad and Bush isn't a reasonable cause for fleeing the country out of fear your kids will be overexposed to intolerant attitudes. What I don't see is anyone backing up these assertions with any kind of evidence.

Cause laws passed with overwhelming majority destroying people's rights, an obvious widespread Fundie infestation, and well-known bias against Outsiders and those who aren't Christians aren't enough? What a pathetic argument. 'We're not cartoonishly evil yet, so it doesn't count..'

[Perinquus]

And somehow I do not see how all that anecdotal bullshit changed the fact that abstinence is over contraception here, you're required to take oaths to your country that awknowledge a God you may not have chosen to believe in,

Really? That's funny, since last time I checked there were no legal penalties of any kind whatever for refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. In fact, this pledge was under challenge in the courts as being potentially unconstitutional because it contains an acknowledgement of god.

absurd laws prevents the ill from getting something which may alleviate their suffering

If you are referring to the fact that we don't allow cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, there happens to be a good reason for that. We still want to have pharmaceutical companies a few years from now. We don't allow cheap drugs from Canada because it will wreck the pharmaceutical companies. It costs millions, if not billions of dollars for a new drug to be developed and put through the years of FDA testing to get it approved. It costs millions more for pharmaceutical companies to defend against lawsuits, some of which are legitimate, but some of which are frivolous. The cold, hard economic reality is that these costs have to be passed along to the customer if a company is to stay in business and keep making the drugs. If the drug companies cannot recoup their investments in developing new drugs, they will go out of business. This may not win you any friends, but that's the cold, hard reality. The current shortage of flu vaccines is largely because of the low-price large quantity purchase of vaccines by the federal government. Ever since the federal government became the biggest single buyer of flu vaccine in this country, and imposed federal price controls, it has been unprofitable to produce flu vaccine. Most companies can't produce enough to make a profit. And (quel surprise!), when a business becomes unprofitable, people get out of the business. If low cost drugs from Canada are allowed to be sold here, it will undercut the profits of the pharmaceutical companies who make new drugs. If they stop making new drugs, how much suffering is that going to cause, and how many lives is that going to cost a few years from now?

and still more that clog our already shitty prisons with harmless inmates,

What harmless inmates? People who go to prison, with very rare exceptions, richly deserve to go there. I ought to know. I send them there. Have you ever stopped to consider the broader effects of crime? A violent home invasion might only do a few hundred dollars in damage. But what sort of emotional damage might that wreak on the homeowners. What would that do to the peace of mind of people knowing that they are not safe even in their own homes? The number of sexual predators in our society is actually quite small, yet they have made millions of parents reluctant to let their kids go to the park unsupervised. Crime, even trivial crime, degrades the quality of life of 280 million non-criminals. Don't even try to elicit sympathy from me for inmates in this country. In most cases, if anything, they've got it too soft.

and the now, in eleven states, it is that much harder for homosexuals to get genuine protection before the law equal to that of everyone else.

And yet things are immeasurably better for them than they were just a couple of decades ago. So I still fail to see any evidence that things are so bad that you need to flee to another country in order to escape the terrible conditions in this country.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Canada's economy is heavily resource-based. You can export a call-centre job to India, but it's a lot harder to export a nickel mine to India. Or a softwood lumber operation.

I wasn't aware that people doing manual labor needed a college degree or the like. Some training yes, but how many people who've never done a day of manual labor would want to start?

Resource-based industries are not all manual labour. A lot of chemical engineers go to work for the oil companies out west, geologists also work for them, mechanical engineers routinely work with companies that do mineral extraction and refining, etc. It's not a Bronze Age mine with a bunch of labourers and pick-axes.

But wouldn't it be cool if it was?

OFF TO THE NICKEL MINES OF ALBERTA WITH YOU!

[SirNitram]

And somehow I do not see how all that anecdotal bullshit changed the fact that abstinence is over contraception here, you're required to take oaths to your country that awknowledge a God you may not have chosen to believe in,

Really? That's funny, since last time I checked there were no legal penalties of any kind whatever for refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. In fact, this pledge was under challenge in the courts as being potentially unconstitutional because it contains an acknowledgement of god.

While this is Primus' point to argue, I will speak up on this as it touches on an issue. Does everyone here know the Supreme Court? That magical place where the Constitution's contents are used to determine whether or not laws are just? You know what place the current sitting President has been shitting on?(Here is the article cited on this site about it..)

This is one of the reasons sane people are bringing up leaving, for those who are too dim to get it. Disregarding one of the basic checks and balances of the system is a bad fucking sign. That no one seems to notice or care does not send the necessary 'Stop doing that' signal to those in charge.

Why bring this up? Well, everyone, remember what the response from D.C. was to that challenge.

[Perinquus]

Oh cry me a fucking river. I'm an atheist with fundie relatives. You think I haven't felt any backlash from that? Yes there is some intolerance. Guess what? Anywhere you go on earth you are going to encounter some. That's the nature of things. The question is whether or not intolerance has risen to such levels that you genuinely have to fear that if you don't want your kids to be indoctrinated into bigots themselves (as Mike suggested was a realistic fear), you'd better move to another country.

Let's see... At least forty percent of the country is indoctorined.. Could there be a non-zero percent chance of risk? Maybe you're just really bad at math, that might be it...

And maybe you ought to produce some evidence to back up your claims. Forty percent of the country is indoctinated you say. And yet 65 percent still favors allowing gays to form civil unions. And a couple of decades ago, we were prosecuting consenting homosexual adults for sodomy. Yes, clearly things are getting worse. Better run while you can.

I'd like someone to show me some evidence of this. I really would, because in a country where openly gay characters and interracial relationships and minority leading men and leading women regularly feature in popular entertainment, and where I personally know openly gay men and women who are simply not suffering any overt discrimination or career obstructions, I see precious little evidence that things are that bad.

You lie very poorly, Perinquis. How many states passed laws discriminating specifically against Gays on Tuesday again? It's not a hard question, I'm sure you can find it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to frantically dodge around it, too.

And 1. how is this Bush's fault? 2. how does this actually make things worse than they used to be, when we not only had, but enforced anti-gay "sodomy" laws? and 3. how are things going to continue to improve, if the people who are opposed to the status quo run away to sulk when their candidate loses an election?

And I love how intolerance with you always reverts back to race. Have racial situations improved? Yes. But are you actually enough of a sentient being to process the idea there's more to intolerance than just racism?

Translation: since we no longer have overt segregation or jim crow laws, it is obvious that racial intolerance is not as great as it used to be, so I'd better artificially limit this to one kind of intolerance if I'm to have any hope of making my point that American society isn't becoming more tolerant. Because, as we all know, there is only one kind of intolerance, and the same Bible that fundies today use to justify anti-gay discrimination, was never used to justify racist discrimination

For blacks in the south in the pre-civil rights era, I can certainly understand why they'd think things were so bad they'd be better off somewhere else. Ditto for gays anywhere in the U.S. in that era. Though the U.S was hardly alone in that during those days - Alan Turing, remember, killed himself because it was illegal to be homosexual in Britain back then, and he was about to be prosecuted for it. This, however, is not the same time, and there simply isn't much evidence things are that bad. We don't enforce laws like that against gays anymore, and I see no evidence we are about to start enforcing any. I see a lot of people sneering at me for suggesting that things really aren't that bad and Bush isn't a reasonable cause for fleeing the country out of fear your kids will be overexposed to intolerant attitudes. What I don't see is anyone backing up these assertions with any kind of evidence.

Cause laws passed with overwhelming majority destroying people's rights,

What right? To marriage? As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is nowhere defined as a right. I don't approve of these anti-gay laws either, but let's not overstate things.

an obvious widespread Fundie infestation, and well-known bias against Outsiders and those who aren't Christians aren't enough? What a pathetic argument. 'We're not cartoonishly evil yet, so it doesn't count..'

Nice strawman. I have never claimed that there was no intolerance, or that intolerance had to be so bad that we were "cartoonishly evil". What I have contested is that it is reasonable to believe that intolerance has reached such proportions today in America (especially in the wake of Bush' election) that one needs to flee to escape it, or to escape having one's children corrupted by it.

[Perinquus]

And somehow I do not see how all that anecdotal bullshit changed the fact that abstinence is over contraception here, you're required to take oaths to your country that awknowledge a God you may not have chosen to believe in,

Really? That's funny, since last time I checked there were no legal penalties of any kind whatever for refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. In fact, this pledge was under challenge in the courts as being potentially unconstitutional because it contains an acknowledgement of god.

While this is Primus' point to argue, I will speak up on this as it touches on an issue. Does everyone here know the Supreme Court? That magical place where the Constitution's contents are used to determine whether or not laws are just? You know what place the current sitting President has been shitting on?(Here is the article cited on this site about it..)

This is one of the reasons sane people are bringing up leaving, for those who are too dim to get it. Disregarding one of the basic checks and balances of the system is a bad fucking sign. That no one seems to notice or care does not send the necessary 'Stop doing that' signal to those in charge.

Why bring this up? Well, everyone, remember what the response from D.C. was to that challenge.

Can we say slippery slope anyone?

So how do you explain the fact that almost 200 years ago, Andrew Jackson also pretty much told SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall to go jump in a lake. It was one of the most flagrant violations of the checks and balances ever, and yet we didn't degenerate into a police state during the last couple of centuries. A single occurence does not a trend make. You'll need more than this, I think.

And even if the SCOTUS declares the pledge of allegiance, with the words "under God" in it are unconstitutional, this still doesn't change the fact that you are not in any way shape or form whatever required to take the pledge, so this argument is still bullshit.

[SirNitram]

Oh cry me a fucking river. I'm an atheist with fundie relatives. You think I haven't felt any backlash from that? Yes there is some intolerance. Guess what? Anywhere you go on earth you are going to encounter some. That's the nature of things. The question is whether or not intolerance has risen to such levels that you genuinely have to fear that if you don't want your kids to be indoctrinated into bigots themselves (as Mike suggested was a realistic fear), you'd better move to another country.

Let's see... At least forty percent of the country is indoctorined.. Could there be a non-zero percent chance of risk? Maybe you're just really bad at math, that might be it...

And maybe you ought to produce some evidence to back up your claims. Forty percent of the country is indoctinated you say. And yet 65 percent still favors allowing gays to form civil unions. And a couple of decades ago, we were prosecuting consenting homosexual adults for sodomy. Yes, clearly things are getting worse. Better run while you can.

Forty percent are so out to lunch they beleive the planet Earth is ten thousand years old or less. When you ignore all reason, logic, and evidence in favor of a two thousand year old book of mythology extolling all sorts of horrific crap against people, yes, there's indoctorination.

But hey. This means nothing to you. You simply move the goalposts constantly; 'Ah, but we're not THIS bad!'

I'd like someone to show me some evidence of this. I really would, because in a country where openly gay characters and interracial relationships and minority leading men and leading women regularly feature in popular entertainment, and where I personally know openly gay men and women who are simply not suffering any overt discrimination or career obstructions, I see precious little evidence that things are that bad.

You lie very poorly, Perinquis. How many states passed laws discriminating specifically against Gays on Tuesday again? It's not a hard question, I'm sure you can find it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to frantically dodge around it, too.

And 1. how is this Bush's fault? 2. how does this actually make things worse than they used to be, when we not only had, but enforced anti-gay "sodomy" laws? and 3. how are things going to continue to improve, if the people who are opposed to the status quo run away to sulk when their candidate loses an election?

1) Did I say it was? No. You must not be able to read English. However, maybe it's just that you're too stupid to realize people are looking at more than just Bush being re-elected.

2) 'It's not as bad as before! Wah!' It's still a step backwards from where we were before November Second you retard. Yes. The forces of intolerance won victories on Tuesday. Maybe you should admit this fact instead of trying to move the goalposts.

3) Probably won't. However, if you are in honest threat for whatever reason(Raising kids and not wanting them around bigotry, being gay and wanting to get married), nothing fucking requires you to stay. Gods, you nationalist retards are boring. You just keep harping on how it's somehow other people's responsibility to fix things and stay no matter what.

And I love how intolerance with you always reverts back to race. Have racial situations improved? Yes. But are you actually enough of a sentient being to process the idea there's more to intolerance than just racism?

Translation: since we no longer have overt segregation or jim crow laws, it is obvious that racial intolerance is not as great as it used to be, so I'd better artificially limit this to one kind of intolerance if I'm to have any hope of making my point that American society isn't becoming more tolerant. Because, as we all know, there is only one kind of intolerance, and the same Bible that fundies today use to justify anti-gay discrimination, was never used to justify racist discrimination

Nice try, but unfortunately, Perinquis, you're too stupid to apparently see the point. While tolerance to some groups is growing, intolerance to others is also growing. And just as I would nod to any black who wanted to leave the South when shit was going crappy there at the time, it is equally within the rights of a secularist to not want to sit around in the increased atmosphere of intolerance towards non-Theist folk.

For blacks in the south in the pre-civil rights era, I can certainly understand why they'd think things were so bad they'd be better off somewhere else. Ditto for gays anywhere in the U.S. in that era. Though the U.S was hardly alone in that during those days - Alan Turing, remember, killed himself because it was illegal to be homosexual in Britain back then, and he was about to be prosecuted for it. This, however, is not the same time, and there simply isn't much evidence things are that bad. We don't enforce laws like that against gays anymore, and I see no evidence we are about to start enforcing any. I see a lot of people sneering at me for suggesting that things really aren't that bad and Bush isn't a reasonable cause for fleeing the country out of fear your kids will be overexposed to intolerant attitudes. What I don't see is anyone backing up these assertions with any kind of evidence.

Cause laws passed with overwhelming majority destroying people's rights,

What right? To marriage? As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is nowhere defined as a right. I don't approve of these anti-gay laws either, but let's not overstate things.

Shall we move to the 'Enemy combatant' bullshit which has been ruled against by the Supreme Court but continues? That definately violates rights. Both situations exist thanks to Bush; indeed, if you want to narrow this down to just Bush, it is the more legitimate point.

an obvious widespread Fundie infestation, and well-known bias against Outsiders and those who aren't Christians aren't enough? What a pathetic argument. 'We're not cartoonishly evil yet, so it doesn't count..'

Nice strawman. I have never claimed that there was no intolerance, or that intolerance had to be so bad that we were "cartoonishly evil". What I have contested is that it is reasonable to believe that intolerance has reached such proportions today in America (especially in the wake of Bush' election) that one needs to flee to escape it, or to escape having one's children corrupted by it.

Since we both agree there's a large amount of intolerance left to go, perhaps you'll simplify this debate(Or perhaps roaring match) into one answer:

What makes you qualified to decide for other people when they should need to escape intolerance against them, and decide when their children are in danger of corruption?

[Darth Wong]

That's great. I'm sure you can find specific examples of whites and blacks getting along really well together in Alabama too, but that doesn't change the fact that just as New York is less racist than rural Alabama, Canada is less homophobic and religious than the United States. The fact that A < B is not refuted by saying "B isn't as bad as you think!"

Which is a nice way of avoiding the fact that United States isn't yet the irredeemable, intolerant, bigoted, racist, anti-gay police state that you apparently would like to think it is.

Hmmm, did that point make a cool "whoosh" sound as it flew over your head? Let's go over it again: saying that "B isn't as bad as you think" does not refute the point that A > B.

And aside from that, I also don't buy for a minute that New York is less racist than Alabama. <snip some personal anecdotes>

Yeah sure, your personal anecdotes effortlessly annihilate such things as an interracial marriage ban surviving in the Alabama law books until 2001 when it was narrowly defeated by a 60/40 margin.

[SirNitram]

Can we say slippery slope anyone?

We can, and we can say 'No, this argument is not. This argument is entirely based on the fact that rights are being taken away despite the fact it was ruled unconstitutional, and this is simply being ignored. It exists solely to demonstrate that yes, it's been proven that Bush will ignore the checks and balances on his office for his own goals.'

[Darth Wong]

So how do you explain the fact that almost 200 years ago, Andrew Jackson also pretty much told SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall to go jump in a lake. It was one of the most flagrant violations of the checks and balances ever, and yet we didn't degenerate into a police state during the last couple of centuries.

So by your logic, somebody who thought the country was intolerant and left at that time would have been an idiot?

[Axis Kast]

Perinquus hit the nail on the head; there was no more damning evidence for the other side than that those who plan to emmigrate waited until the election of George W. Bush to decide that they just "had to get out."

Let me also remind those who accuse me of unfairly criticizing Diests: my rejection of certain peoples' characterizations of the devout as absolutely blind morons is not a rejection of the beliefs and values that compose a Diestic worldview.

Finally, Canada is in equal danger from outsourcing as compared to the United States, despite its economy's reliance on resource extraction - particularly because we have so many more so-called "greenfield" jobs (those that can't leave because they are dependant on the unique coming together of high rates of education, competant fiscal institutions, a world-class infrastructure, and liberal, democratic government as it exists in the U.S. and other first world nations, principally in the U.S. because it is the largest). Nobody can stop outsourcing - not even subsidies, which only prolong the heartache of plant closings and loan defaults, not prevent them.

[Axis Kast]

So by your logic, somebody who thought the country was intolerant and left at that time would have been an idiot?

Compared to, what, Europe?

[SirNitram]

Let me also remind those who accuse me of unfairly criticizing Diests: my rejection of certain peoples' characterizations of the devout as absolutely blind morons is not a rejection of the beliefs and values that compose a Diestic worldview.

Wasn't talking about your syphilis induced ravings, kiddo. I'm talking about the reaction from those who, coincidentally enough, are rural, voted Republican, and are Christian(And there are alot of them, lemme tell you, having crossed this huge nation on the surface more than once) to the idea of someone not believing in their sky faerie or some variation of it.

[Darth Wong]

Perinquus hit the nail on the head; there was no more damning evidence for the other side than that those who plan to emmigrate waited until the election of George W. Bush to decide that they just "had to get out."

That's idiotic. If you held out hope that America would exceed your expectations and were disappointed by the election results, it would be perfectly natural to go elsewhere.

All you are saying is that somebody must meet a bunch of completely arbitrary, made-up criteria in your mind to have an "acceptable" reason for leaving the country and going elsewhere, and then pretending there must be something wrong with them if their personal criteria for their own happiness do not coincide with your judgements thereof

[Axis Kast]

All you are saying is that somebody must meet a bunch of completely arbitrary, made-up criteria in your mind to have an "acceptable" reason for leaving the country and going elsewhere, and then pretending there must be something wrong with them if their personal criteria for their own happiness do not coincide with your judgements thereof.

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. Glad you finally noticed. We should have more discussions like this, Wong.

[Darth Wong]

So by your logic, somebody who thought the country was intolerant and left at that time would have been an idiot?

Compared to, what, Europe?

Oh I dunno, maybe they could have tried going the route of the Underground Railroad and moving to Canada. The Trail of Tears, after all, was symptomatic of larger issues that would eventually culminate in the Civil War. So Perinquus' attempt to use Mr. Jackson's imperial decree as an example of a situation which did not warrant leaving is almost laughable; someone who left during his reign would have avoided the Civil War for himself and his children. It would have been a brilliant move.

[Darth Wong]

All you are saying is that somebody must meet a bunch of completely arbitrary, made-up criteria in your mind to have an "acceptable" reason for leaving the country and going elsewhere, and then pretending there must be something wrong with them if their personal criteria for their own happiness do not coincide with your judgements thereof.

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. Glad you finally noticed. We should have more discussions like this, Wong.

What the fuck is wrong with you, dipshit? I'm not the one passing judgement on these people; you are. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the completely made-up and arbitrary criteria upon which you make this judgement.

[Perinquus]

Forty percent are so out to lunch they beleive the planet Earth is ten thousand years old or less.

Where's your source for this claim? I'm rather skeptical of it, honestly.

When you ignore all reason, logic, and evidence in favor of a two thousand year old book of mythology extolling all sorts of horrific crap against people, yes, there's indoctorination.

But hey. This means nothing to you. You simply move the goalposts constantly; 'Ah, but we're not THIS bad!'

And this still does not constitute any evidence that things are so bad you'd better run.

1) Did I say it was? No. You must not be able to read English. However, maybe it's just that you're too stupid to realize people are looking at more than just Bush being re-elected.

So why did they cite him as the reason for leaving? It's in fucking quotes. Who's the one who can't read again?

2) 'It's not as bad as before! Wah!' It's still a step backwards from where we were before November Second you retard. Yes. The forces of intolerance won victories on Tuesday. Maybe you should admit this fact instead of trying to move the goalposts.

And any step backwards means you'd better tuck tail and run, of course. Any setback amounts to a defeat. Of course, the supreme court may easily declare these laws unconstitutional, but why give your checks and balances time to work when you can unass the area?

3) Probably won't. However, if you are in honest threat for whatever reason(Raising kids and not wanting them around bigotry, being gay and wanting to get married), nothing fucking requires you to stay. Gods, you nationalist retards are boring. You just keep harping on how it's somehow other people's responsibility to fix things and stay no matter what.

I never said they had a responsibility to stay, in fact, early on I declared that they had every right to leave (there you go again, and yet you accuse me of being unable to read). But what I still haven't seen is evidence that our society is that dangerous to thier kids' development. If there is such a terrible danger of their children turning out so bad and so indoctrinated, how the fuck did these people escape?

Nice try, but unfortunately, Perinquis, you're too stupid to apparently see the point. While tolerance to some groups is growing, intolerance to others is also growing.

Bullshit. Twenty years ago, it is highly unlikely to say the least, that we would have shows on TV that would openly portray gay characters. Thirty years ago, it would have been inconceivable. People in the U.S. today are less likely than ever to suffer discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. If you deny this, you are full of shit.

The vote for defense of marriage acts was a setback, not a complete reversal, and I would be highly surprised if it is anything other than a temporary one. It may take even years, but it will ultimately go the same way all these ant-gay sodomy laws did.

And just as I would nod to any black who wanted to leave the South when shit was going crappy there at the time, it is equally within the rights of a secularist to not want to sit around in the increased atmosphere of intolerance towards non-Theist folk.

Of course it's within their right. But again, all your bleating of intolerance does not change the fact that the gays I know simply are not suffering from the kind of discrimination and intolerance you say they are. It does not change the fact that the trend in popular culture and perceptions is clearly becoming more sympathetic, not less. These things take time. You seem ready to declare defeat just because of a setback. Forgive me if I am not so pessimistic.

Shall we move to the 'Enemy combatant' bullshit which has been ruled against by the Supreme Court but continues? That definately violates rights. Both situations exist thanks to Bush; indeed, if you want to narrow this down to just Bush, it is the more legitimate point.

Can I have some salt with this red herring?

Since we both agree there's a large amount of intolerance left to go, perhaps you'll simplify this debate(Or perhaps roaring match) into one answer:

What makes you qualified to decide for other people when they should need to escape intolerance against them, and decide when their children are in danger of corruption?

Because I have enough common sense and sufficient powers of observation to note that things are not this fucking bad, despite your attempt to make it look like we are actively persecuting homosexuals (or maybe it's just liberals, since the article cited does not indicate in any way that these potential immigrants are gay, just anti-Bush, and therefore presumably liberal). Of course they can still leave if they wish to. Far be it from me to stop them. But there are reasonable fears and there are overstated ones. I have yet to see any solid evidence that this one is reasonable.

[Perinquus]

So how do you explain the fact that almost 200 years ago, Andrew Jackson also pretty much told SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall to go jump in a lake. It was one of the most flagrant violations of the checks and balances ever, and yet we didn't degenerate into a police state during the last couple of centuries.

So by your logic, somebody who thought the country was intolerant and left at that time would have been an idiot?

Hardly, because there was a lot more evidence of it at that time - you know, little things like slavery and like actively taking Indians land away from them, and having the army march them off to marginal land hundreds of miles away. That's a hell of a lot more solid evidence of intolerance than anything you or Nitram or anyone else can come up with today.

And it misses the point anyway. Nitram pointed to the possibility that Bush might flout supreme court decision as proof that things were getting worse. I pointed to this example of how a far more egregious violation actually took place, and yet it did not start us down the slippery slope.

[darthdavid]

absurd laws prevents the ill from getting something which may alleviate their suffering

*snip*

and still more that clog our already shitty prisons with harmless inmates,

*snip*

He was obviously talking about the multi-billion dollar black hole known as the war on drugs you tard. You know, the Don Quixote- Esque crusade by the government against letting people do what they want with their bodies. Their idiotic railing against any medical research for THC based ocular drugs and MDMA based psychological drugs, their unfair and frankly draconian minimum sentencing policies. Oh wait, you're the essence of tard and as such misinterpreted his statements as whining about how Canada has cheap prescription drugs and saying that we shouldn't persecute any criminals and we should let them all free. God you're fucking stupid.

[Spyder]

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/

Anyone wanting out of Jesusland is welcome here. A pack Hobbits and a million units of storm troopers can't be wrong!

[Perinquus]

That's great. I'm sure you can find specific examples of whites and blacks getting along really well together in Alabama too, but that doesn't change the fact that just as New York is less racist than rural Alabama, Canada is less homophobic and religious than the United States. The fact that A < B is not refuted by saying "B isn't as bad as you think!"

Which is a nice way of avoiding the fact that United States isn't yet the irredeemable, intolerant, bigoted, racist, anti-gay police state that you apparently would like to think it is.

Hmmm, did that point make a cool "whoosh" sound as it flew over your head? Let's go over it again: saying that "B isn't as bad as you think" does not refute the point that A > B.

And saying that B < A does not refute the assertion that B is not so bad that running away because your party lost an election appears as anything other than overreacting.

And aside from that, I also don't buy for a minute that New York is less racist than Alabama. <snip some personal anecdotes>

Yeah sure, your personal anecdotes effortlessly annihilate such things as an interracial marriage ban surviving in the Alabama law books until 2001 when it was narrowly defeated by a 60/40 margin.

And I'd also like you to show me how many people were prosecuted under that ban in the last few decades. Just because a law remains on the books means little. Here in Viriginia we still have laws against unmarried couples cohabiting. They date back to the 18th century. No one's bothered to enforce them in at least fifty years. Probably longer. I'm sure you'd find lot's of legislators who'd oppose repealing these ancient laws because they still entertain some scruples against them, and they don't want to vote against their principles when there's no political gain from doing so. But still no one ever bothers to enforce them. Just because the racism of New York City dwellers has not been enshrined into law the way it was in Alabama doesn't make it one whit less real.

[Perinquus]

absurd laws prevents the ill from getting something which may alleviate their suffering

*snip*

and still more that clog our already shitty prisons with harmless inmates,

*snip*

He was obviously talking about the multi-billion dollar black hole known as the war on drugs you tard. You know, the Don Quixote- Esque crusade by the government against letting people do what they want with their bodies. Their idiotic railing against any medical research for THC based ocular drugs and MDMA based psychological drugs, their unfair and frankly draconian minimum sentencing policies. Oh wait, you're the essence of tard and as such misinterpreted his statements as whining about how Canada has cheap prescription drugs and saying that we shouldn't persecute any criminals and we should let them all free. God you're fucking stupid.

Blow me smegbreath. You are obviously too fucking dim to realize that ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. I was unaware of this particular issue, and thought he was referring to something else. I'm sure your knowledge is perfect and complete, so there's no danger of anything like that ever happening to you.

Grow the fuck up you arrogant smarmy little piece of shit.

[SWPIGWANG]

Free movement of labor

Voting with one's feet

Freedom

People against freedom :p:

Nationalism :p:

Immigration to Canada isn't exactly an "huge" thing. Paper work, money, and an few hours drive and you're up here..... It is probably easier to do than dealting with voter registration laws.