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 had requested for the like feature.....and I still think a like feature is good. However, reputation ratings is a bad idea. By putting this kind of reputation ratings - MLF is actually enabling, and helping in the BIASED "assassination" of posters' reputation in this forum. How can you do that to your members? You refused to put up a suspension and ban list as your way of protecting your members.....and yet you put up something like this? Why do you want to demoralize your members from speaking their minds, delivering their own style, stifling them to "sanitize" the way they deliver? This board is so dead already as it is, and a lively fiery debates are what's needed to stimulate interest to attract newbies into signing in. Why do you want it bland? If it is the desire of MLF to cleanse this board of posters who doesn't share their views.....you don't have to go to this length. Just say so that certain posters are better off to go elsewhere.

Another Muslim thread. This interview last night addresses a lot of the issues we debate on this board. The idea that fundamentalist Islam is not some insignificant fringe of the religion and if any other religion acted this way we wouldn't tolerate it. They also bring up the issue that when moderate Muslims do speak out they're often shouted down by the left as Uncle Toms. http://www.salon.com/2017/02/04/watch-sam-harris-tells-bill-maher-we-need-to-win-the-war-of-ideas/

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!

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)

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/

I was assuming the objective was to flag well written posts. If it is just a partisan cheer-leading mechanism then it is pointless. Progressives tend to form their opinions based on what other people think. Conservatives tend to have opinions based on principles and don't really care if they are popular.

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

Why would you want to? You know that all that's going to happen is Lefties are going to downclick everything a conservative says and upclick everything one of their own says.

I disagree with the premise. I could not care less whether people like or dislike a post because despite your claim otherwise it does simply become a partisan popularity contest where people on one side of an issue will like all the posts that say things they agree with and dislike those that say things they don't like. If we are to have a ranking system it should be based on the quality/thoughtfulness of the post and have nothing to do with whether someone agreed with the opinion expressed. I would get rid of 'like' and replace with 'worthwhile' or 'thoughtful' or 'insightful' to make it clear when people should vote for a post.

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!

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?

Btw, they're saying on CTV that the meeting between Trump and Trudeau isn't going to happen on February! Imagine that. And our PM is soooooo wanting to meet asap! Don't imagine the wire hasn't been burning furiously trying to set this up. CTV correspondent says that Trump will be busy - what with the coming of Netanyahu to Washington! It's the "busy time-line." That's the excuse being given by CTV correspondent. If true, let's see how Canadian leftist media will bend like an athlete gymnast trying to save Trudeau's face for getting......snubbed.

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 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.

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?

How about calling it "Quebec separatist terrorism"?

Your comparison to Hitler is wrong. Hitler demonized, and stripped the Jews of their humanity. Heck, he planned their genocide. The Jews wanted to leave - but he wouldn't let them. He wanted all of them dead! On the other hand, it's the opposite with Trump. Trump is trying to have security for all Americans (and that includes all Muslim-Americans). Non-American Muslims want to come in! Do you see the contradiction with Hitler? Jews wanted to leave. Muslims want to get in! Entry to a country is not a right! It is a privilege.

That's what they're trying to do. They've put a temporary ban in order to put in place the kind of screening they want to do. You wonder how the San Bernardino housewife managed to get in despite having some red flags. A nation has the right to choose which ones they want to allow in their country. Being allowed entry in a country, is a privilege....not a right.

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

No, I want to hear your interpretations of what is actually happening. Ok, so I looked it up...and it seems that he wants to stop funding abortion clubs. Just what I thought.

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.