Leaderboard

Screwy. Absolutely screwy. I'm convinced after reading as much of the Wikipedia article as I could stand, that it's all designed to get as little done as possible. Could someone knowledgeable please explain this structure to me?

Also, the money being raised has little, in my opinion, to do with the two-year election cycle. Senators have a six-year term and they raise even more.

Obviously not... There's not much to say to you if you think this way

Can you give examples of citizens of Iran involved in terrorist activities in the US? Most of those from Iran that I know are high educated and fit very well into North American culture and economy. No matter if they are Muslim or not, they don't want to be in Iran because they don't support the regime there.

No. She should move on. The fact that she couldn't even defeat the orange clown should make it unmistakably clear: Americans just don't want her to be President. Someone else will carry the torch. -k

What do they call sexual accidents in public pools? Accommodation?

Why did you start a new topic when this has already been discussed?

Not quite. Bills for raising revenue (it reads) begin in the House but still require it to go through the Senate.

Safeword ... Allahu Akbar?

You're free to pretend I wrote the Quran. I suppose you have to, though. It's a violent book from a violent cult. If you want Canada to be more Islamic, best put your best face on. Smile at the unbeliever.

I see you are unfamiliar with the Parable of the Ten Minas. Jesus is telling a story...to the flock. A story with a lesson. He is not the 'King' in the text.

Anti Semitism has been going on for 2000 years in Europe. It is on the increase at present.

If one views Islamic invasion as a good thing, I doubt Europe's destruction is much of a bother.

Islam with dominate.

I still don't see how a petition opposing Sharia law is SPAM and extreme right-wing campaign.

Answer- when it's a culture that brings poverty, misery, disease and suffering.

That's a contradiction. What is far right about opposing Sharia Law?

Since he's apparently a Lebanese Christian I'm sure he has had lots of 'issues' with Muslims in his life.

I disagree, TSS. It is a suitable form of government now as well. Impact, I believe, has hit the nail on the head. How exactly does federalism work in Canada? Where lies the demarcation between a provincial government and the federal government in Ottawa?

even if one out of 10 of these anti muslim stories are true, they would still out number any of the good muslim stories.....more to my point, is you've cherry picked my post to suit you...perhaps you can address the point that islamic terrorism has a larger voice than most Islamic nations have, much larger than any good muslim group has, which over shadows the good muslim message.. And yet there is no movement on this front , maybe i'm wrong and you can show me a source, where Muslim countries or nations or large groups of muslims have taken action to change that.....forget the small message of them condemning terrorist acts.....everyone does that, whether they believe it or not....This is why the so called good muslims are having problems in the west.....because we are bombarded by extremist muslims messages all the time.... I don't give a rats ass who they want to impose it upon, we have law and order in this nation already, if shia law worked out for them in their last home nation why are they here....i can tell you it's not the weather.....And where do we draw the line with laws, which laws over ride Canadian laws....it creates a dogs breakfast..... Sorry for my hysteria.....i was feeling some what wild and crazy this morning.....

So now you have to lie and Strawman my position. I guess you've lost already.

That sounds pretty standard for parliamentary democracies. Although I understand most of them don't allow the head of state to have any powers over foreign affairs, though they accredit and receive ambassadors. The US presidency has grown over time, but then again, it's partly because the United States federal government has grown over time. I have to admit that, despite seeing the need to have some updates to it, or even a new one to plug some of the holes, the 1787 constitution has proven to be reasonably adaptable. Despite the growth of the presidency, the Congress still has enormous powers. Even "Obamacare", despite being the initiative of the president, had to be introduced into the House and Senate by members of Congress. The President can recommend laws, he can approve laws, he can even [try to] prevent a law from coming into being (or privately threaten to do so) but he cannot actually make the law. A friend of mine who works on the Hill told me a very small fraction of the bills introduced in Congress come from the president's recommendations. What the founding fathers wanted was a president who served as long as deemed fit to do so. They wanted a shorter term (four years they thought was nice) so that his competency to govern could be reassessed at regular intervals. Washington could have served for life if he had wanted to; thank God he didn't, since it started a tradition (not broken until FDR) that a president should only serve two terms then step down. But that was when "republican government" was commensurate with "legislative supremacy" (i.e., Congress should be the most powerful branch of government, since one of its chambers was directly elected by the voters). So it would not have been as harmful back then. The authors of our 1787 constitution figured that the more transient congressmen would be the most powerful people (and the most dangerous) since they had the power to make laws. The presidential veto was likely put in there to prevent congress from passing laws that would circumscribe the president's authority to administrate the nation and carry out its laws. That's one thing I wouldn't change. Even in Britain at the time, the dichotomy between the head of state and head of government wasn't fully developed, so there was nothing like that for us to adopt into our own constitution.

Thank you for your generous offer, I hope I haven't come across as dismissive or adversarial.

I still do not see the difference that one year will make. Besides as I said, it messes up the timing of the elections. Also, I haven't heard any news outlet in the States talk about changing the presidential term to 5 years instead of 4. Also, the second term of a president is when he/she typically worried about his/her legacy. How long is the term of a parliament in Finland? and what's the average or median tenure of a prime minister?

Whatever turns your crank chief.

I know, I'm just more interested in not supporting western civilization, something that irks you even more I suspect.

I disagree that the *only* reason for newcomers to Canada is to benefit Canada. We also do it for humanitarian reasons, aka refugees. The "Me First" attitude amongst so many conservatives is not a Canadian value, imo.

Europe is really lost.

President Trump is not the first to point out NATO spending deadbeats like Canada and Germany. Obama said the same thing...in Ottawa. Next time, don't call the USA to tow Canada's broke dick ships back to port.

But never tell the protesters that they have the right to protest in a lawful manner ? Never remind everybody of their Charter Rights ? Or does that only apply for issues that are "socially acceptable" by those with a political agenda ?

Bought from thieves = stolen land. The people of the region had no say in the rules made by the absentee landlords and rulers that facilitated their dispossession. I recall how often the usual suspects who defend this decriminalized form of dispossession also refer to the influx of Chinese money into Canada in pursuit of real estate as an invasion. They seem to understand the nature of the principle that's at issue here but as usual the ethics appear to completely baffle them.

Cool. That still leaves the topic of your clue and lack thereof.

Invite them into the co-Dominium.

45000 posts later and you still don't have a clue?

I was commenting on the strangeness of the greenback which I wouldn't be surprised to learn has a lot to do with where our dollar stands in the scheme of things.

Actuality no, it's more like if you steal a grandfather's home you also disposses a grandchild, not to mention creating a world of trouble in the process.

He'll still have the elites the msm, Obama, snowflakes etc etc to blame. There's always an excuse.

How about America Only? How about America just stays home and minds is own business? You know, a really hopey changy difference for a change? The US doesn't have enough trouble at home it has to go find/make even more just about everywhere it goes?

There's only one country on this planet that could or would do that.

No I'm assuming that US interests include being the dominant power on the planet, as others have noted exceptionalism is back, hugely. Bill Gates is not a Shining Beacon of 'me first'. I'm assuming US will have to become great again by doing what it did to become great in the past, which was to put itself on steroids and push it's weight around. I'm willing to bet that a policy of America First has made more lives and places around the world miserable than better.

Well sure, if you don't count Trump.

I think it's probably the credibility of the audience that's most compromised these days. We should rename our planet Babel.

Could you please refresh my memory of why you didn't vote for Trump? I'm afraid it's escaped me.

What about the night I ate a mushroom and saw God, does that count?

Probably just as well, the snowflakes would have driven you postal.

Is it just me or is it getting altogether to easy to appear moderate and balanced around here these days?

Wah. What name calling? Cite or bite. Of topic as usual.

These are quotes of what I said not what you heard. Unfortunately you never get that difference and so when you respond to what you heard and I ask to show me where you actually heard me say that it never matches up with what I wrote. This is normally called moving goalposts and creating strawmen...you're so bad at though that it's not funny. You do this constantly, as evidenced in this very same post... It's not the same. Instead of responding to what I wrote, America having it coming you switched to some relationship between bombers and bombees...fine have it your way, When we blow up innocent bystanders alongside our legitimate targets we call it collateral damage. Given the attackers on 9/11 targeted the symbols of American interference in the Muslim world, military, political, and financial I have little doubt there were individuals in those places who were as legitimate a target as any we target on their side. The bystanders were collateral damage. Now I've heard it argued before that the innocent we kill alongside the guilty over there deserve what they get for associating with the guilty so by the same token why should it be any different here? Why shouldn't we do any different unto ourselves as we do to unto others?

I would agree to move to another seat, firstly out of consideration for the other passengers on the plane, and secondly because I would have no wish to travel next to some bigot who finds my presence repulsive. However, in the general case I think that these guys should be treated like any other passengers who disrupt the flight and refuse to comply with the flight crew: removed from the plane and perhaps charged according to applicable laws. -k