Leaderboard

Forums don't need to choose "winners". They exist to allow discussion.

The latest Executive Orders will snuff Wall Street regulation and kill a rule that would require bankers to act in their clients' best interests. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/317698-trump-to-sign-executive-actions-targeting-obama-financial-regulations Remember how Trump was going to stand up for "Main Street" against "Wall Street"? Seems pretty hilarious in hindsight, doesn't it? -k

I have no one on ignore.

No it was not true at all. The comments you agree with called an SSRI reputable inhibitor a hormone. That is sheer nonsense. It claimed anti-depressants make people happy. That is sheer nonsense. Ignorance about mental illness, depressive illness and how drugs work to manage certain illnesses is nothing that should be applauded. One of four Canadians will suffer from a depressive illness that may require pharmaceutical intervention. Alternative teratments such as yoga, exercise, diet are all crucial and necessary but for some pharmaceutical intervention means the difference literally been life and death or life or a life of quality or a life severely hampered by symptoms that could otherwise be controlled. Its a false and ignorant statement to suggest anti depressants are happy pills or a crutch or a hormone. That is sheer ignorance. We do not live in the stone age. We have the ability today to understand mental illness and talk about it in an open and intelligent matter. This past Jan.25, we had some good Canadians working with Bell to encourage people to donate to mental health causes and talk about mental illness. I forget the red haired athlete Olympian who champions that cause off he top of my head but she is someone I admire for spreading education. Big pharma spends millions on research. It has to put its drugs through some complex trials before they can be released on the market place and many or not. The conspiracy about big Pharma overcharging is based on not understanding the amount of research that is spent to get a drug off the ground and into public use and how most drugs r researched never hit the market. Its easy to think of drugs as evil. We've seen class action law suits when the side effects of drugs were not properly predicted. We hear stories daily of how psychiatrists over-medicate. The fact is we have a shortage of psychiatrists and so the ones we have do not have time to do what they would like to do and often crisis manage and yes some will rely on drugs more than say psychotherapy it does not mean they don' t try get their patients to engage in physical activity, diet, education, meditation, etc. That's just not true. What is true is an over-worked gp or psychiatrist will issue a prescription if they feel their patient is in crisis because they don't have time to do anything else.That's more a reflection of modern urban life where people are isolated and disconnected from their communities and spiritual values. Blaming big pharmas for that is stupid. In every topic are two sides. For people who have a lease on life, extra time, a life without pain, the medications you may be ridiculing are valuable to them. That said and back to the topic simplifying the mental illness of rage killers as being a cause of anti-depressants is past stupid. There is absolutely no data, none, that shows rage killers are what they are and do what they do because they are on anti-depressants-that is fabricated bull crap.

S. Africa? we have to criticize bad ideas, regardless of our cultural divide. Islam is the most violent religion by far in the world today. We may not be able to reform it from the outside, but being critical may embolden Muslims to try and do so from the inside. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali need all the support they can get!

In the other forum, anyone who gives your post a like will have their names appear at the bottom of that particular post. That's important! You want to know who agreed with you, and for what! Another plus point for like feature, is the way it helps maintain a good relationship between posters - even those who don't agree. I've had bitter debates with some, and we've given each other a like in neutral threads....just to let each other know that there's no hard feelings between us.

What's the point of devoting time, creating any threads....that's what I'm thinking now? I surely am not liberal, and I don't feel I have to appease others here by stifling myself....just so to get the "approval" of fellow-members. Surely, all my threads will be poorly rated! In other words, this is an attempt to cleansing views, forum-like.

No! What's "high quality," is highly subjective. It depends on who's reading, and who's pushing that button. As an example, I don't want to name names....but we've just had a slew of topics from someone who posted childish OP....and she is found to have high quality postings? Her rating is neutral! This reputation rating is an ASSASSINATION method for those who have opposing views from the majority in this forum!

Wait, let's look closer shall we. Article from a few weeks ago... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-adds-goldman-sachs-executive-administration-article-1.2944943 "Trump is adding even more Goldman Sachs [one of the biggest banks in the U.S.] executives to his nascent administration. Trump’s top donor and close advisor, hedge fund manager and Goldman Sachs alumna Anthony Scaramucci, will serve as a senior White House advisor...The two are the fifth and sixth major hires for Trump who previously worked for the financial giant." Now today's story from kimmy's OP: "President Trump will sign an executive order that could effectively kill a contentious investment adviser rule that had been a top priority of President Obama....The president is expected to sign a pair of executive orders targeting rules imposed on the financial sector Friday, according to senior White House officials. And one of those orders takes square aim at the “fiduciary duty” rule written by the Labor Department, finalized after years of effort in June. That rule establishes significantly stricter standards on investment advisers for retirement plans and had been fiercely opposed by the financial industry. One of Trump’s closest advisers, Anthony Scaramucci [from Goldman Sachs], went so far as to equate the regulation with the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of slaves could not become citizens. Under the rule, advisers would have to act solely for the benefit of their clients [what a wild concept!]. But industry critics argue it would be costly and burdensome to implement." [ costly and burdensome to their big profits!!] The same article also shows Trump and his big bank team looking to kill parts of Dobb-Frank, formally known as the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", that was..."passed [in 2010] as a response to the Great Recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies." Could this happen in Canada? Here we have Kathleen Wynne's Liberals having lobbyists from Canadian banks attending expensive cash-for-access fundraisers with cabinet politicians: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/investigation-reveals-likely-guests-for-ontario-liberal-cash-for-access-fundraisers/article30783097/

You either like a post or you don't, thumbs up/thumbs down. I don't think we'll be able to control how people interpret that. I don't care if people like my opinions or not. It changes nothing.

Greg, I fully agree that you're within your right to make moderation/banning actions, its your forum after all, likewise I can understand your point on "vandalizing" the forum through the described actions by Cybercoma. Going forward, now that the rules on such actions are crystal clear, and I assume if they're not already, you will be including them on the conditions of membership for new members? Furthermore, though I don't know him personally, nor do I hardly agree with Cybercoma on any given subject, could it be any "confusion" on the rules on the part of Cybercoma, combined with him maybe going through a personal rough patch (*** I'm not an expert by any stretch, but his "mood" has seemed "off" recently***) perhaps be grounds to warrant a longstanding member one single "Mulligan"? IOW, a suspension with a short leash versus a complete banning? Thanks. (to add, I agree with a "window" for editing posts for spelling etc or fixing a link etc)

You have to have a thick skin to express conservative ideas in today's Canada. The left is very quick to label people who disagree with them as sexist/racist/anti-science/etc. That said, it is good you are using the feature in the way it is meant to be used.

Such a generalization. I've upvoted one conservative type today; will I be tossed from the Liberal cabal?

Isn't that how we elect our government?

Something vaguely related to Canada's fighter jet procurement... Boeing (the company that builds the F18 Super Hornets that the Liberals want to purchase) has joined a coalition of U.S. companies who all favor the imposition of an import tax in the United States. (If applied to Canadian-made goods, it will end up hurting our exports, and ultimately our economy.) Ok, this isn't specifically about the F35 or Boeing, but I wonder if that would make any Liberals reconsider their plans to purchase the F18. (After all, if Boeing is going to harm Canadian jobs, it may decrease sympathy for them.) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-companies-tax-idUSKBN15H2VV

Can you at least get rid of the 'community recommendation' on the profile page?. It is unreasonable to label people based on whether a majority of people agree with their opinions. If you want it to be used for something other than partisan cheer-leading you need to remove the incentive to vote because it affects the status of posters that someone disagrees with. If people vote for or against a post it should only affect that post. The 'community recommendation' feature reminds me of the social media dsytopia in Black Mirror Season 3: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/black-mirror-nosedive-review-season-three-netflix/504668/

Well.... I'll settle with Rasmussen. It was among those few who'd given the poll that Trump was winning the race to the White House.

The dislikes accumulate. For example, I posted something a few seconds ago and it already had a -1 on it. So you could wind up having like -200 I suppose, unless conservatives emulate the Lefties and upvote everything from the right while downvoting everything posted by our renowned lefties.

That was during his "honeymoon" period. You've seen how contentious the election was. Politicians go past the honeymoon period. What matters is his approval rating close to election! Btw, his approval rating as of today is 54%, according to Rasmussen. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb3

IMO, a simple up vote would be better. Edit: I noticed I got a dislike for my post asking for "how to search". That is simply absurd.

Yes but that does not show exactly which of thousands of posts got likes. That page turns it into a competition which exactly what we don't want. I would rather see that page deleted and replaced with a page that shows the 'liked' posts sorted time. I dislike such ranking systems because they encourage people to be partisan and ignore the quality and/or substance of the post and simply vote for it because they agree/disagree with it. I would rather see a system that encourage people to like posts based on substance rather than whether they agreed with it.

This ought to be here. The Post claims these new F-18s will only fly for 12 years and the military warned against buying them. In addition, Defence department officials had earlier warned against buying an interim fighter jet. But the report containing those warnings, which had been on the department’s website for more than a year, was quietly removed after the Liberal government announced its Super Hornet purchase. The Defence Research and Development Canada report recommended against the purchase of such “bridging” aircraft to deal with gaps in capability. “The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term,” according to the report. “Any short-term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.” http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-admit-interim-super-hornet-jets-may-only-fly-for-12-years-despite-costing-billions

What Republicans work to get rid of him, like McCain, are from the "NEVER TRUMP" group! What do you think? Of course they'll try their best to get rid of him! They want the Republican Party to be the way it's been - a liberal posing as a Conservative party - before Trump had taken, and given it back to its grass roots!

The Republican Party isn't destroyed. It had evolved under Trump.

I bet Trump will show that he doesn't give importance to Trudeau. I bet no special one-on-one meeting with Trudeau will happen in the near future. He's most likely to lump Trudeau with Pena, together in one meeting - and that will be when Trump is ready to talk NAFFTA! Payback for our PM's reckless tweets is most likely commencing. You think Trump doesn't know about Trudeau's promises to Canadians?

Assuming your wet fantasy happens.....if that happens........I wonder how Republican constituents will react to that? We'll really witness the Republican Party ripped apart. It'll mean the end of political careers for some. Are Republicans going to have that happen?

No. Then, why do leftists and progressives say that banning the 7 countries is against ALL Muslims? Why are Canadians saying it's bigotry against religion? See what I mean? Double standard! Everybody's fine about banning Israeli students......but not with banning the 7 countries. Canada is fine with anti-Semitism, but furious about what they say is, "Islamophobia!" Canada has no credibility on lecturing Trump on bigotry and discrimination! We practice that, too! It's hypocritical!

Even if President Trump were to be impeached, it doesn't mean he wouldn't serve a full term. Just ask President Bill Clinton....and Monica Lewinsky.

Actually, costing out planes is a pretty tricky thing to do... You've got the basic cost of the plane (which can vary... The first F35As that were produced were > $200 million each, but future batches will all be < $100 million.), but then you have to factor things like any modifications that might be done (for example, when we bought the CF18s, we added an extra identification light that wasn't on the stock F18s, which of course increases cost), whether the initial price includes any sort of spare parts or guarantees from the manufacturer in the short term, and the long term cost of maintenance. When you hear a cost like $120 million (which differs so much from other estimates), you need to consider whether that price involves just the plane, or the plane+spare parts. So many people have claimed the F18 SuperHornet is cheaper, and in the short term it might be (or might not...), but it all depends on what we are getting with the purchase. Long-term, I suspect it will be more expensive, based on the issues of maintaining a fleet of planes for which replacement parts will become scarce after production ceases.

Possibly because, despite your claim, you can't buy 5-8 Gripens for the price of one F18. (Wikipedia lists the fly-away cost of the Gripen at 30-60 million. Cost of the F18 Super hornet: 98 million. At best they would only get 2 Gripens for the price of 1 Super Hornet. And that doesn't include any additional costs, such as pilot training.) Possibly because it can carry much less in the way of weapons. And despite people who claim that Canada should only be concerned about its own airspace, that's an isolationist view which would be rejected by all major political parties (all of which have at one time or another supported using our planes in foreign conflicts.) So, buying something incredibly cheap but limiting now would unfairly hobble future governments (be it Liberal, Conservative or NDP) who may want to use or armed forces in a situation like Bosnia. Here's the thing... Canada is actually pretty well off when compared to the rest of the world. We have a stable government, our economy is not that bad off, and we have a long history of constructive engagement in various conflicts (such as our role in various UN missions.) We could probably equip all branches of our armed forces if we had the political will. Situations DO arrive in foreign countries where military intervention would be beneficial (e.g. Bosnia). As one of the more prosperous countries in the world, the decent thing to do would be to try to contribute in a positive way when innocent people are threatened.

The AG is the lawyer for the people. She can oppose the President However, the President can fire the AG.

I really don't get why people are getting pissy about this. Why would anyone sane feel the need to go back over months and years of back and forth postings and erase everything they wrote here? It's stupid. It's not like it's under your name anyway so you can't even be trying to cover your dumb words from being searched by employers or girlfriends or whatever. And it's not like anything we write here is significant anyway.

I wonder if any Montreal ad agencies are involved in the assessment and decision to purchase the Super Hornets? I'd bet money Bombardier is involved ....

OH it gets better lockmart has already come out and said that within the next 5 years the cost of an F-35 will be 80 to 95 million each....but all of that would have come out in a competition....which we don't need any more....liberals changed the rules and laws.....now a bunch of civilian politicians sit around and pick military equipment that looks cool or they seen on TV, either that or someone has stuffed american dollars into someones pockets.... Canadian Air force are sitting around HQ's with their mouths dropped open, asking WTF just went on.....and we wonder why our purchasing of major equipment is so beyond repair....that now everyone just says fu** it....we like that one we'll take 65.....

Wait a sec, isn't $120 million per aircraft in the range of F 35 costs? Theme song of this Liberal Government: Send In The Clowns. Lets bring back Chretien. He was a thief, but not wilfully stupid.

I know there's been some discussion of this on a general "Trump-Canada" thread, but this is big enough it deserves its own thread.Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama. Finally Trump is considering the interests of his own country rather than "the World" in U.S decision making. While I didn't vote for Trump because of obvious character flaws, I find this refreshing. See also Trump Signs Dakota Pipeline Orders. All of these have received thorough environmental review and their rejection by Obama was purely on ideological grounds. Yes, B. Hussein, it would be nice if energy just flowed from a gas pump.

What you describe is how we got Trump. Open immigration and a welfare society don't mix. Full stop. Muslims don't help with the birth rate problem if they're not ready and willing workers. We can have lots of people at the snap of a finger by providing them with transportation and then welfare benefits when they get here. And lots of mouths to feed as well.

The tragedy in Quebec is not a contest. This is a story of people going bout their lives being killed by someone full of hate.

Problem with that is they are one and the same.....

Do tell me the difference.

And your surprised it's not like most terrorist actions in the world are carried out by muslims....everyone was playing the odds, in fact they threw in a moroccan just to further lead us down the trail..... This guy should be charged with being a terrorist, and we'll see him in 150 years or so....as we should do with all terrorists....white, brown, pink or purple....Once again perhaps we could take some time and see if those laws in place are enough.....funny how we let the khadrs slip out of our fingers, and yet everyone is yelling for this guys balls on a plate....maybe it is just me....

This is why it is best not to hold over flunkies from the previous administration unless they are exceptional at what they do.

Not sure I follow. What are les squareheads?

I'm an American and have been on this site since Jun 26, 2006. Is that a problem for you?

Why is it the American government's job to provide money for healthcare (of whatever type) in other countries? The American government should look after the American people and their interests. As for the many Americans who want to contribute to the well-being of people around the world, they have the opportunity to do so through a wide range of charitable organizations, including both those that provide funding for abortion and those that do not.

If I can't afford hair plugs, but really want them, should taxpayers cover that cost?

It's not like cancer, abortion is a choice, why should taxpayers pay for it?

Quite true. One of my concerns is that the U.S. might wind out having to bail out Europe, again, as a result of this disaster. Think the Marshall Plan. I don't want to offtake their excess nonworking immigrant population.

Reducing immigration or changing immigration policy is not persecution, and neither is reviewing the policy of multiculturalism. Shaping immigration policy to best serve the interests of a nation and its existent population is "right", even if it offends certain people.

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers! A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious. In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society. Given the exact same information, reasonable people reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that this is something intolerable to conservatives. If people don't reach the same conclusions then they're obviously unreasonable, unintelligent or ignorant. A conservative world seems to be so isolated. "I" work hard for "my" money and "I" don't want to share it with people who didn't earn it. Fair enough. But, "you" don't live in this world by yourself. We interact with people for... everything! We're social beings. To put it in selfish terms, "I" benefit from a society that works well and in which everyone is well. So rather than saying conservatives are selfish and liberals are not... which is not true... you can say that each has a different approach to getting what they want out of society. Let's say you own a house on a nice street. Your next door neighbour, for some reason, does not maintain their house. This (in selfish terms) could decrease the value of your house. So, you have three options if you care to prevent this: 1. Contribute to the maintenance of your neighbour's house (money, labour, etc.). 2. Move. 3. Complain to somebody, maybe the neighbour, until the neighbour conforms to your ways. 2 doesn't seem like it would be a popular option. 1 = liberal, 3 = conservative. Mind you, 1. leads to the potential problem of those who tend to take advantage and 3. leads to potential conflict. I guess liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the poison that they pick!