Leaderboard

Who cares? They aren't in positions of power. You put an unhinged loonie in a position of power.

My point was not about the phrasing of your point, it was about the logic. You labeled those who didn't like Trump winning as unhinged loonies. Since Trump didn't like Obama winning, and responded just as those you are labeling, logic dictates that he is an unhinged loonie. b.t.w. I avoided the other thread as it was getting way off track but to preempt some silly dialogue about the different words used we should look at the real definitions. First coup and coup d'état mean 100% the same thing, there is no difference, one is just shorthand. Both a coup d'état and a revolution can be violent or peaceful there is no difference there either. The only difference between the two is a coup d'état implies leadership from officials (could be a different branch like legislative or judicial or yes military as was suggested) and a revolution implies leadership from the people outside of the official government.

Um, who fought against the F-35, tooth and nail... after initiating the deal in the first place? Not to mention there is no gap. The RCAF has already said as much. Just another example of dishonesty from the Liberals.

An imaginary gap caused by the Liberals, which only they and you can see.

Sometimes, politicians manage to figure out the best solution to a problem. City of Surrey is passing new bylaws for aggressive dogs but has chosen not to include a breed ban. The bylaw wants to focus on dogs that are 'at risk' before they actually bite and to assume that all dogs have the capability of acting aggressively. I especially like that a requirement for problem dogs is that their owners seek 'professional' training and that there can be a serious monetary penalty for having a dog that exhibits dangerous behavior. Dogs that are well socialized are so much less likely to become aggressive and owners need to ensure their dogs get that necessary socialization, so I applaud this move by Surrey City Council. http://www.theprovince.com/surrey+skips+breed+puts+more+teeth+updated+bylaw/12861994/story.html

Agreed...this government has done nothing so far and has communicated even less. Sunny ways !!

Despite her insane conspiracy theories and the fact she has most of the people on here on her ignore list and she is convinced the sun revolves around Turkey she does start good conversations. I have been defending her crazies since she started and I must say she brings entertainment to this forum.

Actually there isn't much fuel savings having one engine when the F 35 uses about 2000 kg more fuel to go the same distance as the Super-hornet. There may be some savings in overhaul costs with one engine, if you can get the same TBO out of that one engine but the F 35 burns so hot I would tend to think it may be subjected to unscheduled maintenance. And of course if you do lose that one engine you lose the whole plane. From what I know from actual pilots, they like lots of engines. Especially if they are over the ocean or the freezing cold arctic. .

Dialamah you want to push the topic? Well PIK in fact was the one who used the generalization " give THEM an inch ". Uh yah that's a generalization about all Muslims. True. Someone could ask though for the exact same point you are making why did you used Jewsin your example not Christians, or Buddhists, or Bahaiis, or Hindus? Accusing people of singling out religions is funny that way. The people who question others for doing it do I find and its probably because I am a Jew, Jews in their response. On this board any discussion about Muslims or Islam sooner or later turns to Jews. Why you think that is? Coincidence? Seriously Why you think that is? You had all kinds of religions to choose from. You didn't use Christianity the majority religion of Canada or the religion of PIK or Argus. Why? See how that works? I am no comfortable generalizing an entire people. Your initial point was right but even in your selection of Jews as your counter example, you engaged in the same thing whatever you claim the intention was. People generalize. Sometimes for negative reasons, sometimes to make a valid point. I myself do think there are Muslims claiming to be mainstream and representing mainstream Muslims that do not. That is all I will say on the point of the Muslims singled out in this thread. I don't think they represent mainstream Muslims. Me personally I think mainstream Muslims, the majority, and I am generalizing no different than PIK or Argus, don't want special treatment, just the same treatment as everyone else. I do think a certain segment of Muslims get angry and say things expressing their anger that comes out in political expressions demanding certain rights of others they don't necessarily give to those others. I think some Muslims expect people to tolerate them while reserving the right to be intolerant of others under the pretense of their religious and cultural rights. I think it has to b e two way. That said there is a reason people don't react to visible minority ultra orthodox Jews or Amish people or nuns the way they do say Muslims who are visibly wearing and loking different. The reason is the three groups I mentioned are not at this time associated with terrorism. If they were, I think you'd have the same expressions being thrown at them s I am not sure how much of that is deliberate bigotry and how much of that is people claiming they can't tell the difference between non violent and violent Muslims. When there was Siekh violence in Toronto and British Columbia, and for that matter the India flight was bombed, hate expressions against Siekhs went up. In my neighbourhood some idiots were yelling at Siekhs telling them to return to Afghanistan because they see one turban or head wrap they mistake it as another. Some bigotry is deliberate and hateful and ignorant, some of it is based on people making negative assumptions because they blame an entire people for the bad behaviour of a minority. Its wrong of course. Its negative generalization and stereotyping. Its illogical. However its a fact and the people who often respond to it to challenge it do the same. Its a vicious cycle. Myself I think stereotypes get torn down when people have a chance one on one to meet people of the entire group they are stereotyping negatively and have an opportunity to interact with them long eough to see, hey they ant so different they pee just like me. Now I was watching one young woman today making a speech about how Muslims want rights. She was speaking collectively. Interestingly you really think anyone would have the negative reaction they have if they had no terrorism in their minds? Let's face it, terrorism smeers all Muslims in on bad colour of death. It creates a huge pretense for stereotype. Muslim terrorists want you and I to hate all Muslims and not distinguish good from bad. In so doing we necessarily alienate them and make hem easier to recruit. The most effective tool against Muslim terrorism is recruiting Muslim moderates. We have Muslim moderates in Canada/ There is no shortage of them. So how do we get non Muslims to speak with them? That's the question maybe we should ask. I come from Reform Judaism. We believe and believed the only way we would be able to effectively deal with anti-Semitism was not to hate or fear Christians which we had good reason to, but embrace them. See our biggest ally were and still are righteous gentiles-the ones that hid us in WW2-the ones that support Israel today and even volunteered to go to Israel and work on collective farms. Those righteous gentiles we met, we embraced we still do, and we form alliances and coalitions with and pray together and work together. It was not that hard. The very precepts of Christianity are the teachings of Jesus who took the Talmud and put it into everyday practice. It wasn't hard to find common ground. Our only difference was that Christians refer to Jesus as THE son of God, Jews would say all humans not just Jesus are a son of or daughter of God. Its not that big a difference when you sit and talk. Many Christians like Jews today define the word Messiah as the potential in each individual to save the world through positive behaviour and injure the world through negative behaviour and believe when doing positive things, that positive energy that is spread is the spreading of "God". That belief is in Hinduism, or the non religious philosophies of Buddhism Taoism and its found in all religions. Interesting how its a common theme and yet everyone acts as if its not. Now with Islam it has that belief. Its just at its stage of development. mainstream Mullahs and Imams of the Sunni and Shiite faith tend to focus on les abstract concepts than positive and negative energy being spread by our very individual and group actions, called Teekam Olem in the Talmud and the golden rule by Christians. Its there, its just not the central focus at this time. Its because like Christianity not too long ago and Judaism in ancient days, its now dominated by a form of war mentality that judges and invokes punishment and very rigid harsh pronouncements. Oh you bet fundamental religions all do that including Judaism and Christianity not just Islam. Its just we don't see say a Reform Jewish or Protestant Christian movement in the Islam world at this time. Its moderates have not formed major movements yet. Its starting but progressive Muslim reformists are in a stage of development where they don't exacly feel safe. They get smeered by non Muslims as terrorists and by Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists as infidel. So what do people expect? When they speak and try to be heard will the same people saying all Muslims are bad acknowledge them? Maybe we should mention that in these discussions. http://www.apmo786.org/?page_id=2535 http://www.mpvusa.org/ Irshad Manji is no terrorist. She is a progressive Muslim in Canada. I challenge anyone to call her a terrorist or anti Canada or anti democracy. Is the Mayor of Calgary a terrorist? Naheed Nenshi could conceivably end up the Premier of Alberta or Prime Minister of Canada one day. Is it so crazy to say by supporting Irshad Manji a Muslim woman who questions intolerance in Islam this is far more effective than just assuming all Muslims are bad? I challenge that in these discussions. Giving credence and attention to malcontents as if they speak for all Muslims, I think just empowers them.

I'm not itching to call you anything and there are also things in every culture that I'm not keen on including my own, but I just wonder why you have such a generalized attitude toward Muslims, like they are some kind of unvarying monolithic group.

No, this thread is still about Trump, and I keep hearing him being referred to as a border wall moron. Right?

Here is just a little. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/for-canada-immigration-is-a-key-to-prosperity/article14711281/ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic http://www.readersdigest.ca/features/heart/why-canada-needs-more-immigrants-now/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

Why does he keep making the same mistake? Why doesn't he correct himself or at least stop saying it? Why doesn't he ever correct any of his bullshit? Why does he need people like you to do it for him? Who is being manipulated here?

What do you call it when somebody repeatedly misspeaks, even after being corrected many times? He misspoke the same misinformation during the election and was consistently corrected. Yet he continues to misspeak and rely on other people to relate their "alternative understanding" of what he really, really meant.

Yes, the country was in excellent shape when Obama inherited it in 2008. That's an excellent example of an alternative fact. Thank you.

I'm not interested in telling you the difference between a resistance and a coup anymore because it doesn't matter because it's just a stupid comedian talking. I'm just delighting in reminding you that the standard to which you hold Sarah Silverman is higher than the standard to which you hold the president of the U.S. Her call for resistance/coup/whatever is bad; Trump's call for revolution is not to be spoken of because there are no words to defend him.

Yes, Rosie O'Donnell certainly qualifies as unhinged. I promise you I will never vote for her.

No, I'm saying you seem to be the one with a problem understanding English. I already explained about coup, go back and reread it is not that difficult. I didn't know about Whoopie Goldberg but just looked it up and she did not call for martial law. She was saying that Trump's statements on Chicago sounded like he was calling for martial law.

It was in the Impeachment thread. Someone was going on about how horrible Sarah Silverman is and how she represents everybody who ever voted for Hillary because she called for a "resistance" against Trump. Apparently this person thought "resistance' meant the same thing as "coup", and that she was calling for a coup against Trump. But even if she was, so what? She's a comedian. Then it was pointed out to the poster that Trump had called for a revolution against Obama. The poster refused to believe it until faced with irrefutable evidence. Then the poster went on a tantrum, using all sorts of coloured fonts, about how revolution doesn't really mean revolution and that they didn't want to talk about it anymore. It was hilarious. Made my day.

Why does Manitoba have to plead with the Federal gov to get help with refugees from the USA? Trudeau ought to be prepared for this, after all he issued a world-wide invitation. And yet, just having 22 refugees cause crisis? Only 22, and they call it a crisis! Wait til they come by the thousands!

Scotland. And they came here dirt poor. Worked until they were able to buy a chunk of land, where they built a barn, plowed the ground, fed themselves and others and sold the extra to pay the bills, made a lot of friends. paid a lot of taxes, and raised six kids who did pretty well. That's my story but it's certainly not a unique one. Screen immigrants, but don't ban them.

Both of which flourish thru immigration.

That was clearly articulated in the Liberal platform for the 2015 election: We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military. The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces. We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well- equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability. We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight. We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers. Last spring they launched a major review on Canada's defence policy. It was supposed to report to Cabinet by the end of 2016, and be released to the public early this year. I haven't seen the actual document released, so I am not sure what 'early' means. I have however highlighted a bullet point you can attack them on.

Because CANADA !!!! F*CK YEAH !!!!

How do you expect the Palestinians to get their shit together when you have Israel retroactively legalizing the settlements? We've been over this again and again, even you agree the settlements are an issue, but yet, I still get push back from you regarding it. China and Russia escape my blame because I simply don't know what they did to Jews. However I am sure you'd be able to tell me all about it in great length. Actually since I don't know much about Marxist-Lenist stuff, it's really irrelevant to my stance. Actually I have no guilt. Because I was not the problem and not a perpetrator in atrocities against Jews. And you are right, this crap has been going on for centuries, something I had mentioned before, and wow, looks like you agree. And I never claimed to speak for them. I speak for myself and what I see. Screw your stupid projections.

Exactly. Anyone can make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers...

Well, at least the public don't have to worry of selling secrets to China..Clinton or becoming a drug dealer, or fooling around with the interns.

The expressed indignation about values screening. I would never hire someone without an interview. Why would we bring over immigrants without one?

Yeah, I checked his web site after posting. I don't like his immigration policy. In particular, where he writes: I will introduce smarter immigration policies, using tiered security screening and increased terrorist surveillance, while saying No today and forever to a values test for citizenship.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-passes-law-legalizing-thousands-of-west-bank-settlement-homes/ Israel has retroactively approved of all settlements in the West Bank. Apparently the government is divided over this news. Nothing more than legalized land theft in the name of 'security' for Israelis. Time goes on, Israel grabs more land. Many give them a pass on land grabbing, but when other nations like Russia do it is seems to be bad. One day Israel will rule over all of that, that seems inevitable. What is the real cause of this conflict? Not Muslim antisemitism. If it is really still a reason, it no longer the biggest reason for the conflict.

And from CHANTAL HÉBERT: Also: As I've said earlier, Bernier, Scheer and O'Toole are going to be my top three picks.....Bernier will be my top pick (likewise most of my extended family that are party members, absent my brother that is going O'Toole first). Last year, my wife and I (and my father and mother) all maxed the donation limit on Mad Max, and are holding off until the end of the month to donate again.......for this year, we were thinking of donating ~$500 to each of our top three, but now we're considering $500 to Max and the balance to one of O'Toole and Scheer as a plan "B".

And there isn't really any point to drop out now......its about leverage....for example, say both Alexander and O'Toole have ~4-5% support among the party and they're being courted by both Bernier and O'Leary. Waiting until the March deadline, they both might be trying to get another couple percentage points (translated into ridings) more, well knowing they will never win the leadership, in the hopes of "giving" their endorsement to one of the likely winners that (in the backroom) offers them a plum cabinet spot in exchange.

There's a peterson running?

The writing is on the wall for most of them. They can't get name recognition or funding, they need to fold their tent and go home so a debate with more substance can take place.

Or made Peter Mackay the leader of the PCs over one of Prentice, Brison and Orchard......the later two became Liberals.

Uh huh. The kind of wheeling and dealing which gave us Joe Clark as leader?

I disagree.......unless someone wins outright (50% +1) in the first round, the follow on rounds are where the wheeling and dealing take place.......

I honestly think most of them should drop out. It's impossible to get a sense of people with so many candidates. Bernier, Lietch, O'Toole, Scheer, and O'Leary can stay. The rest need to go.

Kevin O'Leary doesn't "sell" party memberships, he, like the other candidates link to the CPC generic registration......maybe ~9000 people have visited his website? Or maybe ~9000 people have joined after he entered the race....granted, that could be people joining the party to vote against Kevin O'Leary. Let's assume though that he has got 9000 people to join that intended to support him, that would represent ~10-15% of party members........what regions and ridings are these supporters in? Are they concentrated or spread out? None the less, I will watch tonight's debate and see how O'Leary does

In the other forum, some leftists gave me likes....and I gave some likes to leftists too. Depends on what's being said. The like feature helps in different ways.

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!

Apparently the Saudis "screening" process didn't work so well leading up to 9-11. You know, those people who actually did attack America.

And they can't, its a party wide membership.........they don't even have the ballots finalized.

We'll see how temporary it will be but the point is, why aren't Saudis "temporarily banned" for instance? I guess money (especially oil money) Trumps even Donald's form of xenophobia.

Its a challenge by Turkiye and Russia against the World. These two countries openly declared that they are the decision authority about Syria, so World politics.

The problem with that is the person moderating the forum most of the time is not in fact an adult. I'll show myself the door.

And that, of course, is noted in the passage I quoted.....If O'Leary is able to raise over a Million in the next couple of months, and get such a diverse level of support as Bernier, then it will be a much closer race......I know he raised a whack of money during a 24 hour blitz, but what I don't know, is if this will continue and translate into party memberships intent on voting for O'Leary.

Bernier is blowing everyone out of the water on fundraising:

Any injustice done to anyone, regardless of their religion or ethnicity is wrong. There should be reparation. I'm all for it. The Asian Jews should be allowed to go back to their countries of origin. I have never said or thought otherwise. I also think the European Jews, who are the overwhelming majority of the migrants, should also go back or accept to live within one nation, with Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion. By the way, I just want to follow-up because you went off on a tangent: Did you read the link I shared with you? Have you replaced the wrong information from your head, re: a) how many Palestinians were driven out of their land and b ) Palestinian's legal claim to the land, with the correct information?