Leaderboard

Well, it is looks like the start of Canada trying to get rid of some of it's past British history in Canada. A statue of Edward Cornwallis has now been removed from a Halifax park because it was found to be offensive to a certain ungrateful indigenous segment of our society. Cornwallis founded Halifax and a statue was put up to recognize and honor him. But apparently some were not quite happy with the statue being there and demanded that the city of Halifax take it down. And so the Mayor of Halifax gave in to them and took it down. After the statue was taken down organizer Susan Patles said with a laugh as she stood atop the empty concrete pedestal that the view from the empty concrete pedestal was great. She then went on to say that "it is our view now because we are taking over...it's time for the indigenous uprising". Is it on the warpath time now? According to Patles her aim is to eliminate anything that has to do with Cornwallis. That should never be allowed. Maybe she should stop and think about the time when the Indians in Canada before the white man came along were out there always trying to kill others from another tribe. The Huron and the Iroquois hated each other so much that they would go out and try to kill one another just for something to do I guess. The white man put a stop to that barbaric practice. But we won't mention that fact. Yes, there may have been some things that were done against the Indians in Nova Scotia but is this just the beginning where anything that has to do with Canadian British heritage may have to be eliminated so no one else will be offended some where else in Canada? This may only be the start of it. And just who are these politicians anyway to go over the heads of the rest of the Halifax tax paying citizen's anyway? Did they not ask the other citizen's first as to whether this statue should stay or go? Whether some people may have a problem with statues of someone that celebrates our British history there is no good reason to take those statues down. This statue stood in this park for 85 years. This can only start to breed more animosity towards people who are out to try and eliminate our British heritage. What happened in the past is over. Cornwallis probably did more good than bad for the Indians. But hey, it would appear as though these days anything that has to do with our British WASP past heritage well it has to go. We don't want to offend anyone else anymore now do we? Let us just give in to them for the sake of peace dam the history. Source: EuroCanadian website.

"HuMANkind."

Speaking about reality and ignoring it try read this: “Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” said Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto." source:http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/0212-na-stanley Next your comment: "You don't sound like a very open minded lawyer, but then you tell me that the first thing a lawyer learns is that they are better than the rest." was stupid. It is precisely why I am open minded I do not want a politician undermining a neutral non partisan legal system. Legal decisions should be based on non partisan principles not your personal political biases and bigoted assumptions that only people of the same race as the accused must be on a jury as you have argued. You are the actual closed minded bigot suggesting juries should be selected based on race. What a crock. Trudeau is an inexcusable idiot. He deliberately made comments intended to undermine the jury and the entire legal system, what the hell do you think the following words meant: "Canada has come to this point far too many times." What the hell do you think he was prattling on about. Our Justice Minister said "Canada must do better" in direct response to the not guilty verdict. How fare she claim to speak for me when undermining this jury. Who the hell did she think she was undermining the jury as Justice Minister. Its probably the most politically inappropriate thing a Minister could have done. As for your childish comments that I think I am better then others as a lawyer that's your insecure projection on me and lawyers. No we are not better than anyone BUT we have a higher standard of care when we open our mouths in public. No lawyer, not me, not the Justice Minister, no lawyer has the right to openly undermine the legal system we took an oath to uphold. We don't get to practice law and sheeyat on it at the same time. Its one or the other. Using the office of the Justice Ministry to piss on the entire legal system because the Justice Minister could not separate her own aboriginal identity from the outcome of the decision is as unprofessional as it gets. You clearly don't get it trying to make this about me or by insulting lawyers or pretending Trudeau and this idiot of a Justice Minister didn't act out of line. They both should resign. Do you really need to be explained why politicians should not try undermine, intimidate or influence legal decisions? Do you need to be explained the legal system to work must be impartial and free of the appearance of partisanship? You now have repeated racist concepts that you feel only aboriginals should Judge themselves. How would you feel if WHITE SUPREMACISTS come on this board and say the same thing? Well? Think man before you try turn this into some imagined attack on lawyers. As Bush Chaney said, Trudeau engaged in political partisanship to undermine the jury's verdict. Politicians like lawyers under no circumstance should engage in behaviour that undermines the integrity of the legal system. That is not because we are better than you, but precisely because if we do that, we are acting better than you.

Thank you. You've reduced your argument to the point that I'm getting at. You thus have nothing more to argue and, although I like your company, I suggest Twitter. SEE https://twitter.com/hashtag/gunrights?lang=en All your politics on this is like your mentor's tactics on Sadam Hussein's WMDs, ...post your belief that "Guns are here to stay" and REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT until others just give up, buy a gun, shoot up a school, and prove to your victims why they too need more guns to prevent those like yourself who have them from shooting you.!! OHH, and invest in the gun store so it at least makes this chaos all profitable!

Thanks for that bit of off-topic American trivia. "Collective farming" is not the same as setting up joint marketing boards to represent a group of individual farmers. An airline, oil company or auto company would love to have the monopoly that these boards represent. In the most capitalist times in America, the courts even told Standard Oil they had to split into different companies. So why do Western farmers resent this entity ? If you don't mind, I would like to hear from a Westerner on my question as I'm genuinely interested in what they have to say. How is the American farmer doing these days ? Answer: he's a Mexican paid a day wage. Americans won't even take the job of "farmer" anymore. And yet the government is going to use their own (not Mexico's) money to build a wall and force Americans to work cheap ! Anyway, the shit show that we're describing deserves another thread. Thanks.

Some use drugs to alter their minds and escape reality....has never been a problem for me. Well, forums are entertainment, just like any other kind of social media. It is content to be consumed. This latest "mass shooting" is following the exact same steps that have been repeated many times before, including media excesses. Clicks require content, whether it be honest or fake news. It will take POWER (and more conflict) to have a chance at any meaningful changes to America's gun culture. Winning matters more than righteous justification....lefties are still stunned that the likes of Donald Trump defeated their version of identity politics, and have done so for several election cycles in the U.S. The pendulum will swing back and forth just as it always has. "Gun control" was a major issue in the late 1960's as well after high profile assassinations and rising crime rates, but there was no internet back then. There were three gun homicides in my metro area last night, and a Toronto chap was killed by a gun in Scarborough on Thursday. ...and so it goes.

Andy grew barley, not wheat. He had farms on both sides of the border So, he hauled it to his farm in the US and sold it there. On the way back, Canada Customs (I think it was then) seized his tractor at the border, and Andy simply got in and drove it home. He and Cairns had, however, moved several cargos of wheat into the US for neighbours. Here is an excutive summary: http://www.farmersforjustice.com/access/1998-07.htm After getting a similar case cleared up in Winnipeg (Sawatsky), another farmer (NOT a lawyer) Dan Creighton stepped up and halped Andy represent himself far more effectively than any lawyer had managed to that point. In his research, Danny discovered that barley (and oats) were brought under the Wheat Board Act by an order in councing in IIRC 1952. However, no further order-in-council was issued since that time - thus EVERY sale of oats and barley since 1953 was illegal - as the CWB had no such jurisdiction or right (Charley Mayer testified to that). To make it worse, that '52 order extended only the sections of the Act concerning pooling and licensing - not penalties, so even if it WAS legal, there would be no penalty. That is, if we lived in a country where there was rule of law. It was these three trials that finally (or I should say eventually) took down the CWB. Goodale was the Minister when the final McMechan trial was conducted...with different results from exactly the same charges from which Sawatsky was acquitted. You will never convice me there was not a serious amount of influence applied. Rember, we don't elect judges, we appoint them by politicians.

Duel: Dennis Weaver (1971)

One of my favorites. The 1955 Peterbilt 281...

Sure it is. There is nothing to be embarrassed about re: Western Culture. It's simply the best.

High capacity magazine.

Terrorists are in the habit of using motor vehicles to run over large numbers of people. Therefore ban all cars...

Absolutely...guns are quickly politicized when mass shootings kill students and teachers, but Chicago can be remain gangland shooting gallery without much national fuss. How many politicians can a magazine hold ?

According to statistics in 2016 there were 17500 homicides in the US. That makes it about 45 every day. I think that is a fairly plausible number for a country of 300 million people. 45 a day on average but when 17 happen in a single place that makes it a worldwide news.

The PPSH was pretty reliable due to simplicity...but yes...drums screw-up big time when they fail. Almost impossible to load in battle, too.

Still, a very fine rifle, designed by another Canadian able to pursue his dreams in...'Murica !

Rod Rosenstein: “No allegation that any American was a knowing participant” Rod Rosenstein: "No allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the American election." What will the Dems do now

It's called war.

I've already accepted your surrender.

I know its hard to debate with you.....You have twice the education i do.....you went to grade 2 twice....grade three twice.....grade four twice.....etc

How did you relate lead poisoning to lead water pipes...i thought you and bc being the gun nuts you are would of picked up on that

Let me get this straight. You say details are needed. You say it's just anonymous allegations. You say a tweet is no the way to launch an investigation. Yet you persist in insisting Brown is some monster who abused women. You base this on...wait for it...basically the same points you claim are not valid in this situation. It must really hurt to be you. The human mind is just not designed to be twisted into such illogical pretzels.

Now that's the biggest pile of sh*t posted here for quite a while. Trudeau swift? How about his swiftness in dealing with Monseff? Her citizenship and passport problems still linger and haven't been dealt with. Nor do they appear to be any sort of priority for her or Trudeau. How about Hehr, he didn't deal with those repeat problems in a swift manner. The list of painstakingly slow swift actions goes on and on with Trudeau. As for your non point of it not being his government. well it didn't seem to matter when it was Brown accused. He certainly was swift with that one. He was pontificating about it before you could blink. So no, not partisan bullcrap, as you so eloquently put it. Rather a legitimate question. He didn't hesitate to weigh in and engage in some more vacuous virtue signaling when it was Brown. So why wouldn't he do the same now? Wait a minute! I know why. He did say he waits for people to tell him what's going on, doesn't follow silly stuff like the news. Maybe he just hasn't been told yet. I expect we'll hear from him soon when someone tells him, after all he didn't need any facts or proof in Browns case.

Wynne is a pathological liar. She'll say and do anything to stay in power and defend her crooked Liberal party. This is not over, the truth will out.

So the latest development in this saga is that Brown is now suing CTV for 10 million. Good stuff, they should be held accountable for their reckless and vile actions. I wonder if they'll eagerly report that?

Exactly; his politicizing and interfering has tainted any ability the Crown may have for an appeal, there is no chance for an untainted jury and a fair trial. He is also attempting to destabilize our system in order to implement his own ideology. An unbiased accounting http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/columnists/there-is-so-much-wrong-being-said-by-both-sides-about-the-gerald-stanley-trial-1.23171591

Nope...it was very much Trudeau who saw political opportunity to exploit. He is sleazy that way...the Liberal way.

Far worse than that, Trudeau POLITICIZED the verdict of the jury.

He and his justice minister need to resign after coming out and commenting on that case when the native boy was shot and killed.

Hang back, it is always "fun" when you get two rednecks stroking each other.

No, I am not concerned about your emotional state about this or any other mass shooting incident. The majority of Americans do not own guns, so your theory is flawed. Rant against the "terrorist" gun owners in Canada if that makes you feel better, 'cause Americans ain't giving them up.

This doesn't make any sense....Americans of all political stripes have owned firearms concurrently since before the nation was founded. The firearms continuum is far older than the Civil War, "settling" of the west, mobsters, gang bangers, or mass shooters. Most murderers are not mentally ill. If you are just emotionally lashing out at me for being a law abiding American gun owner, then I will take that as a compliment.

~Smash!~ tinkle