nick wrote:Article - The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and familiesonly,
why the fuck would they put families? to be redundant? Families potentially include Men, Women and Children, and we already know theyre taking women and children so familiies must include... drum roll.. men!
Nick - 25 000 people. good stuff
Sixpack - You're not going to criticize Canada for not taking Syrian men [see: families]? Shocker!
Nick - theyre taking men who are married though... unless people cant read
Sixpack - Herp Derp Great way to dodge the comment there, Nick! Nicely done!
Nick - K
Nick, we know what 'families' means. If you can't derive from my post that I was talking about individual men then you are an idiot, plain and simple. I don't think you're an idiot, so you must be dodging the question at hand. Why aren't they accepting individual men? To your point, none of the terrorists were refugees, so why not accept them all?
It's obvious to everyone here that you disagree with pretty much everything America does. Canada on the other hand can do no wrong. Where do you think Canada ranks vs America on the list of targets terrorists/ISIS/extremists would like to hit? Pretty fucking far down the list. So if Canada won't accept individual men due to security concerns, why do you find it so appalling that a lot of Americans don't want to accept any refugees at all?
