Ontarians are a happy lot, says Forum Research poll

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read.

We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc.

Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page.

Thank you for stopping by.

Join our community!

In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

Ontarians are a happy lot, says Forum Research poll
Topic Started: Jan 2 2016, 07:18 AM (536 Views)
Darcie	Jan 2 2016, 07:18 AM Post #1
Skeptic Posts: 31,154 Group: Member Member #714 Joined: March 30, 2010	Quote: Since at least the time of Aristotle, the desire for happiness — a state of mind characterized by contentment, satisfaction, pleasure or joy — has been deemed the central driver of human conduct. As 2016 dawns, a Forum Research poll commissioned by the Star suggests 63 per cent of Ontario adults are extremely or very happy with their lives. Only nine per cent are unhappy with their lot, and a mere two per cent aren’t happy at all. That’s an impressive degree of contentment in times of economic uncertainty, stagnant wages, precarious employment, a shrinking middle class, global upheaval and climate change. Forum president Lorne Bozinoff said the poll, which surveyed 1,001 people and is considered accurate to within three percentage points 19 times in 20, suggests Ontarians are increasingly finding contentment in activities centred on home and family. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/01/ontarians-are-a-happy-lot-says-forum-research-poll.html Considering the state of the world I can understand why home is a 'happy' .

Replies:
FuzzyO	Jan 3 2016, 04:13 PM Post #16
Posts: 16,968 Group: Administration Member #710 Joined: March 30, 2010	It certainly is. Genocide was not on Harper's plate.



campy	Jan 3 2016, 05:26 PM Post #17
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	angora Jan 3 2016, 04:37 AM Maybe a lot of us are basking in the glow of a new and fresh government (federally) It is the relief of living under a more positive regime that lifting our spirits. Pehaps. Hmmn? 25,000 immigrants and none of them bringing their customs and religion with them.? We'll see you at the citizenship ceremony 2016. Edited by campy, Jan 3 2016, 05:28 PM.



wildie	Jan 4 2016, 02:14 AM Post #18
Veteran Member Posts: 12,173 Group: Member Member #442 Joined: October 11, 2006	campy Jan 3 2016, 05:26 PM angora Jan 3 2016, 04:37 AM Maybe a lot of us are basking in the glow of a new and fresh government (federally) It is the relief of living under a more positive regime that lifting our spirits. Pehaps. Hmmn? 25,000 immigrants and none of them bringing their customs and religion with them.? We'll see you at the citizenship ceremony 2016. Quote: We'll see you at the citizenship ceremony 2016. Did you not mean the 2021 ceremony?



campy	Jan 4 2016, 06:59 AM Post #19
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Don't they have a citizenship ceremony every year where those who get their citizenship papers take the oath. of citizenship. Last year one guy took the oath and then recanted it. Another covered her face. You know stuff like that. I thought it was yearly. Correct me if I am wrong. Quote: Dec 19, 2013 - Approximately 1,700 citizenship ceremonies are held in communities across Canada every year. For a new Canadian citizen, the citizenship ... My point. 25,000 immigrants. Are they going to insist on THEIR customs when taking the oath of citizenship as these yokels did in 2015.?? Edited by campy, Jan 4 2016, 07:03 AM.



Darcie	Jan 4 2016, 07:49 AM Post #20
Skeptic Posts: 31,154 Group: Member Member #714 Joined: March 30, 2010	Don't get your shorts in a know Campy, it's very uncomfortable. Most of the cultures and customs brought over have been positive, you probably make the refugees and immigrants food for one. Why are you so insistent that everyone follows your idea of customs? I certainly would not want to follow your customs. Let people be who they are, the freedom to be if it doesn't hurt or control anyone else is valuable to all. I sure would not want everyone to follow my customs, why do you?



campy	Jan 4 2016, 08:08 AM Post #21
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Darcie Jan 4 2016, 07:49 AM Don't get your shorts in a know Campy, it's very uncomfortable. Most of the cultures and customs brought over have been positive, you probably make the refugees and immigrants food for one. Why are you so insistent that everyone follows your idea of customs? I certainly would not want to follow your customs. Let people be who they are, the freedom to be if it doesn't hurt or control anyone else is valuable to all. I sure would not want everyone to follow my customs, why do you? Darcie. The point I am trying to make is forcing your beliefs on someone else when it comes to a public service. A citizenship service is a government service. Therefore you should follow the guidelines set down to get your citizenship papers. That's if you want to be a real Canadian. If you want to hang on to the religious traditions you brought over with you, then do it in a mosque or a church or whatever.. No one is stopping you. But not at a government service. That is if you want to be a responsible government, that's not pandering for votes. Quote: Don't get your shorts in a know Campy, it's very uncomfortable. How would you know? You don't wear men's shorts do you? In a know? Edited by campy, Jan 4 2016, 08:09 AM.



Bitsy	Jan 4 2016, 09:13 AM Post #22
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	campy Jan 4 2016, 08:08 AM Darcie Jan 4 2016, 07:49 AM Don't get your shorts in a know Campy, it's very uncomfortable. Most of the cultures and customs brought over have been positive, you probably make the refugees and immigrants food for one. Why are you so insistent that everyone follows your idea of customs? I certainly would not want to follow your customs. Let people be who they are, the freedom to be if it doesn't hurt or control anyone else is valuable to all. I sure would not want everyone to follow my customs, why do you? Darcie. The point I am trying to make is forcing your beliefs on someone else when it comes to a public service. A citizenship service is a government service. Therefore you should follow the guidelines set down to get your citizenship papers. That's if you want to be a real Canadian. If you want to hang on to the religious traditions you brought over with you, then do it in a mosque or a church or whatever.. No one is stopping you. But not at a government service. That is if you want to be a responsible government, that's not pandering for votes. Quote: Don't get your shorts in a know Campy, it's very uncomfortable. How would you know? You don't wear men's shorts do you? In a know? CPC changed the rules on their own; courts struck their new rule down.



Darcie	Jan 4 2016, 09:47 AM Post #23
Skeptic Posts: 31,154 Group: Member Member #714 Joined: March 30, 2010	Campy, don't you respect the laws of the land? As Bitsy stated, the law that the CPC tried to pass was not legal. I don't know why you don't support the Supreme Court of Canada. I really would like to know why?



campy	Jan 4 2016, 10:30 AM Post #24
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Bitsy Jan 4 2016, 09:13 AM campy Jan 4 2016, 08:08 AM Quoting limited to 2 levels deeppublic service. A citizenship service is a government service. Therefore you should follow the guidelines set down to get your citizenship papers. That's if you want to be a real Canadian. If you want to hang on to the religious traditions you brought over with you, then do it in a mosque or a church or whatever. CPC changed the rules on their own; courts struck their new rule down. Bitsy it was a lower court. That was being appealed. Never got to the higher court because of 'regime' change. So until a single judge can dismiss a law on her own and it goes to appeal to the Supreme Court what you have is a hollow victory. Now that what has happened, we will look forward to more trouble with the citizenship oath when others will bring their religious convictions with them. That's all I'm trying to say Bitsy. It's like a Ku Klux Klan guy taking his citizenship oath in the U.S. with his hood on. cross 07



campy	Jan 4 2016, 10:35 AM Post #25
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Darcie Jan 4 2016, 09:47 AM Campy, don't you respect the laws of the land? As Bitsy stated, the law that the CPC tried to pass was not legal. I don't know why you don't support the Supreme Court of Canada. I really would like to know why? The law we are talking about Darcie is the one where the niquab was worn to the citizenship ceremony. That law was being appealed and never got to the Supreme Court. Are you not glad that I am here to inform you of your misconceptions? Yep I respect the Supreme Court of Canada. I actually visited it in Ottawa. Now you still want to know why I support the Supreme Court of Canada? I watch the proceedings on CPAC almost every day. The lawyers argue their case and the Supreme Court makes a decision. See? More than one biased judge from a lower court overturning a decision. Bitsy tries to help you. Now I know why.



Bitsy	Jan 4 2016, 11:55 AM Post #26
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	campy Jan 4 2016, 10:30 AM Bitsy it was a lower court. That was being appealed. Never got to the higher court because of 'regime' change. So until a single judge can dismiss a law on her own and it goes to appeal to the Supreme Court what you have is a hollow victory. Now that what has happened, we will look forward to more trouble with the citizenship oath when others will bring their religious convictions with them. That's all I'm trying to say Bitsy. It's like a Ku Klux Klan guy taking his citizenship oath in the U.S. with his hood on. cross 07 Campy, what is your point. I said court...I did not make a distinction. Geez, why can't you respond to what is actually written and not divert the discussion to something that was not said? Hollow victory indeed. She was able to take the oath while wearing her niqab just as others have in the past until Harper chose to wage a war on Canadian Muslims by trying to change the law. I would be happy with any hollow victory if it proved to be a major defeat for discrimination by the Harper government. Why would I as a member of the audience need to see a KKK member without his hood; as long as the citizenship office said he was qualified to be a citizen by fulfilling all qualification that is all that is necessary for me to know.



campy	Jan 4 2016, 01:16 PM Post #27
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Bitsy Jan 4 2016, 11:55 AM campy Jan 4 2016, 10:30 AM Bitsy it was a lower court. That was being appealed. Never got to the higher court because of 'regime' change. So until a single judge can dismiss a law on her own and it goes to appeal to the Supreme Court what you have is a hollow victory. Now that what has happened, we will look forward to more trouble with the citizenship oath when others will bring their religious convictions with them. That's all I'm trying to say Bitsy. It's like a Ku Klux Klan guy taking his citizenship oath in the U.S. with his hood on. cross 07 Campy, what is your point. I said court...I did not make a distinction. Geez, why can't you respond to what is actually written and not divert the discussion to something that was not said? Hollow victory indeed. She was able to take the oath while wearing her niqab just as others have in the past until Harper chose to wage a war on Canadian Muslims by trying to change the law. I would be happy with any hollow victory if it proved to be a major defeat for discrimination by the Harper government. Why would I as a member of the audience need to see a KKK member without his hood; as long as the citizenship office said he was qualified to be a citizen by fulfilling all qualification that is all that is necessary for me to know. The point is Bitsy. A religious symbol is being used at a citizenship ceremony. A majority of Canadians were against the niquab at the ceremony. That's a step in the door now for other groups. That's not discrimination. That's just common sense. If the Muslims want to shed the image of putting down women that would be a great place to start. Is that clear enough for your bias against Harper? It's a hollow victory for the Muslims.



campy	Jan 4 2016, 01:20 PM Post #28
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Bitsy Jan 4 2016, 11:55 AM campy Jan 4 2016, 10:30 AM Bitsy it was a lower court. That was being appealed. Never got to the higher court because of 'regime' change. So until a single judge can dismiss a law on her own and it goes to appeal to the Supreme Court what you have is a hollow victory. Now that what has happened, we will look forward to more trouble with the citizenship oath when others will bring their religious convictions with them. That's all I'm trying to say Bitsy. It's like a Ku Klux Klan guy taking his citizenship oath in the U.S. with his hood on. cross 07 Campy, what is your point. I said court...I did not make a distinction. Geez, why can't you respond to what is actually written and not divert the discussion to something that was not said? Hollow victory indeed. She was able to take the oath while wearing her niqab just as others have in the past until Harper chose to wage a war on Canadian Muslims by trying to change the law. I would be happy with any hollow victory if it proved to be a major defeat for discrimination by the Harper government. Why would I as a member of the audience need to see a KKK member without his hood; as long as the citizenship office said he was qualified to be a citizen by fulfilling all qualification that is all that is necessary for me to know. The point is Bitsy. A religious symbol is being used at a citizenship ceremony. A majority of Canadians were against the niquab at the ceremony. That's a step in the door now for other groups. That's not discrimination. That's just common sense. If the Muslims want to shed the image of putting down women that would be a great place to start. Is that clear enough for your bias against Harper? It's a hollow victory for the Muslims. I'm 100% for him on his claim. He's right. Everyone knows it's a symbol of anti women culture. www.theglobeandmail.com › News › Politics Mar 10, 2015 - Stephen Harper says niqab comes from an 'anti-women' culture (CP Video) ... Bitsy. I don't have to respond exactly the way you want me to. Just suck up my posts and respond to them or forget it.



Bitsy	Jan 4 2016, 01:37 PM Post #29
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	campy Jan 4 2016, 01:16 PM The point is Bitsy. A religious symbol is being used at a citizenship ceremony. Would you object if a Christian woman worn a cross, or Jewish man wore a yarmulke, or a Sikh wore a turban. Quote: A majority of Canadians were against the niquab at the ceremony. The majority of Canadians had no problem with it for years until Harper began his campaign of fear. Quote: That's a step in the door now for other groups. And what groups would that be? The woman with the cross, or the jewish man with a yarmulke or the Sikh with a turban? Quote: That's not discrimination. It most definitely is discrimination to tell a person of one faith that their attire is inappropriate while allowing the attire of another faith. Quote: That's just common sense. Only in your world is that common sense. Quote: If the Muslims want to shed the image of putting down women that would be a great place to start. This was the choice of a Muslim woman who is proud of her faith and chooses to wear the niqab as an example of her faith., Quote: Is that clear enough for your bias against Harper? It's a hollow victory for the Muslims. The only thing that you have made clear is your prejudices and your cowering fear. As a Muslim woman, I would celebrate what I consider a resounding victory against discrimination, it may ring hollow to your ears but to the Muslim world it is vindication again repression by the Harper Government. Quote: I'm 100% for him on his claim. He's right. Everyone knows it's a symbol of anti women culture. www.theglobeandmail.com › News › Politics Mar 10, 2015 - Stephen Harper says niqab comes from an 'anti-women' culture (CP Video) ... We know you are 100% with Harper but we celebrate that the majority of voters were not....welcome Trudeau!!! Quote: Bitsy. I don't have to respond exactly the way you want me to. At least respond to what is written, not conjecture. Quote: Just suck up my posts and respond to them or forget it. Maybe I will forget them...they are becoming repetitive, redundant and irrelevant. Maybe a break from them is what I need. I will leave it to others to point your unsound arguments. Edited by Bitsy, Jan 4 2016, 01:46 PM.



campy	Jan 4 2016, 02:13 PM Post #30
Handyman Extraordinaire Posts: 28,720 Group: no politics Member #204 Joined: February 2, 2006	Quote: Would you object if a Christian woman worn a cross, or Jewish man wore a yarmulke, or a Sikh wore a turban. I would object if it put down women like the niquab does. And I would not object if their face was uncovered while taking the oath. If they wanted to wear a mask, with the cross or the yarmaluke or the turban I would object. The previous women removed their niquab to take the oath Bitsy. At least that's what I read. You can correct me if I am wrong. Quote: The majority of Canadians had no problem with it for years until Harper began his campaign of fear. Fear? Canadians were not in favour of the niquab and they were in favour of the law to prohibit it at the ceremony. Quote: And what groups would that be? The woman with the cross, or the jewish man with a yarmulke or the Sikh with a turban? They are smart enough to have their religious ceremonies at the church or the mosques. Quote: It most definitely is discrimination to tell a person of one faith that their attire is inappropriate while allowing the attire of another faith. Hold it. Discrimination is not the word. It's the covering of the face that's the problem. None of the others cover their face. It won't be allowed in the workforce Bitsy. You just won't get the job if you are dealing with customers. Same with tats. Quote: Only in your world is that common sense. And thousands of other Canadians that agree with me. This w Quote: as the choice of a Muslim woman who is proud of her faith and chooses to wear the niqab as an example of her faith., Fine. Uncover yourself when taking the oath. Would you allow the same for the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S.? I doubt a niquab would be allowed at a U.S. citizenship ceremony. I could be wrong but church and state are priority in the U.S. compared to Canada. Quote: The only thing that you have made clear is your prejudices and your cowering fear. As a Muslim woman, I would celebrate what I consider a resounding victory against discrimination, it may ring hollow to your ears but to the Muslim world it is vindication again repression by the Harper Government. The only thing you have made clear is your prejudices . A Muslim woman sucking up to her discrimination by men? Her husband and family tried to talk her out of it. Some fear. Repression? Such nonsense. Quote: We know you are 100% with Harper but we celebrate that the majority of voters were not....welcome Trudeau!!! A country with a great reputation, and with one of the richest middle classes in the world. And they vote for change. How does one say stupid? Quote: At least respond to what is written, not conjecture. I will respond anyway I want to. Don't like it. Tough. Quote: Maybe I will forget them...they are becoming repetitive, redundant and irrelevant. Maybe a break from them is what I need. I will leave it to others to point your unsound arguments. You promise? One wagon missing would be a blessing.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Rants, Bouquets, Consumer Issues · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3