Leaderboard

For all the botch-up decisions he's made, YES!

Amazing that a "top Clinton advisor" is only 22 years old and not out of college yet. So he was just graduating high school when he was putting Hillary's campaign together?

The referendum question was:'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' The possible answers were:'Remain a member of the European Union' 'Leave the European Union' I think the biggest mistake the question-writer or writers made was to make the 'Leave-the-European-Union' alternative so ambiguous since one could interpret it to mean anyone of at least six things:1. sign an agreement similar to Norway's.2. Sign an agreement similar to Switzerland's.3. Sign an agreement similar to Turkey's.4. Sign an agreement similar to Canada's.5. Return to the present WTO rules.6. Renegotiate the WTO rules to allow the UK to adopt unilateral free trade.The above are just the ones that come to my mind and each is very different from the other. As a result, a vote to leave the EU was a vote to take leap into the dark with no idea what was to replace it. With the UK government having no clear idea of what the voters even intended to replace EU-membership with, how was it to negotiate a well-written deal with the EU in the short 2-year time frame that it had?We can see now how the UK still hasn't progressed much and might walk away with no deal and still no clear idea of what it wants as an alternative.If Canada should ever call a similar referendum, I would word it as follows:Should Canada remain in NAFTA or adopt unilateral free trade?Canada should remain in NAFTA.Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.Of course other possibilities exist too, but at least in the question above it would be clear not only whether or not Canadians wanted to remain in NAFTA but also what they would want to replace it with should they vote to leave it. In other words, they wouldn't be voting either for or against something (which leaves ambiguity as to what to replace it with), but rather for one of two things. Since they'd be voting for and not against something either way, it would therefore present Parliament with a way forward. If all Parliament knows is that Canadians want to leave NAFTA, it would tell it nothing about what we might want to replace it with. If we vote for something either way, then at least if we vote to leave NAFTA, we'd be giving Parliament a clear direction in which to move rather than just thrust it into the dark like the Brexit referendum did for the UK.If ever Canada has a similar referendum, let's not repeat the UK's mistake and let's make sure we're voting for something either way and not just for or against something with no clear alternative.

Alright Canada why don't we make peace, lower your tariff and start trading like a logical state. We'll continue to fund your nato deadbeat policy i uh mean liberal utopia.

Well well welll talk about miracles. Two penalties conceded and still managed to beat Colombia in sudden death. @capricorn, enjoy that pint while it lasts... Next game against Sweden

That's what I posted...why can't the Nazis in Chicago be more like the Nazis in Toronto. Maybe they are just looking for more NAFTA love.

People in the "dominant class" don't get to define that being "Black" means being one-down. That is part of the problem. Go meet some poor "White" people.

It must be embarrassing to have fallen for such an obviously fake story. I would recommend that you be very careful reading your spam folder.

It's more complicated than that...The Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons for many practical reasons and assurances from the Budapest Memorandum. Russia, U.S. and UK fell short on this agreement, long before Trump was elected and began to criticize NATO deadbeats. Canada's foreign minister has a thing for Ukraine, and she also has a thing for the Americans continuing to pay more in blood and treasure to protect the "post WW2" order.

That’s a long shot even though they are one up against Colombia . Like to think you are right but England will be out next round...When if that happens you can send me a virtual toast. ;)

I like the idea of having this whole matter hanging over his head. I do hope it lasts until the next election. It provides opportunities to bring up how hypocritical he is. "Hand 'em high" he says.. Unless of course you're a Trudeau.

Going extinct is completely natural too but usually without the enthusiasm.

He's denied the allegation (or is it that he just doesn't remember?), so we must believe him. Anyway, we must believe the deniers. Oh, sorry, it's the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent. Has Justin been hoist with his own petard? It's almost too amusing to contemplate. He won't resign. Principles, after all, are important for lesser people.

It would save the country many billion$$$$ if he was a class act and bowed out gracefully, but one thing we know for sure about the Trudeaus is they are a long way from a class act or any semblance of grace.

Hoping to pick up a few votes in this fall's municipal elections, Ottawa City mayor Jim Watson declined the US Embassy's invite to July 4th party. Idiot. The one saving grace is that outside Ottawa nobody knows who Watson is.

With regard to NATO, Canada has been increasing its financial and military support for NATO recently. Trump recognized this. Dismantling NATO would be a major misstep, playing right into Putin’s hands. It would be better if Russia joined NATO then to replace it with an organization where aggressive powers like Russia and China would want dominance. China is trying to dominate the seas beyond its waters. Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea and is trying to do the same thing in Ukraine. If you think Putin’s ambitions stop there, look out. NATO is preventing Russian aggression. The problem is that Trump is either naive to how he is being manipulated or else he is consenting to it. What’s most foolish about Trump is that, as he attempts to weaken his allies through a trade war and disregarding agreements on climate change and humane immigration policy, he is creating openings for Russia and China. At some point soon, countries may give up on trying to work with the U.S. under the U.S. led alliance of the past 75 years, and may instead align with China, whose leadership is well aware of its growing role and minding its p’s and q’s while Trump is pissing everyone off.

I do not distinguish one right wing bunch of loons from the other. There will always be the extreme right and left. But if we do not use the 80 20 rule and ignore the furthest extremes when devising policy for the whole, then the rest of us are fools. Regards DL

Well, I guess I was thinking about how unequal opportunity can be when considering the 1%'s ability to influence the government. Conservatives like to conflate/confuse and ingratiate themselves with the 1% and I honestly think their confusion is deliberate. It's a little suspicious that these lickspittles also like to conflate/confuse ingratiate themselves with Joe-Lunchpail when getting all pissy and noisy about equality on the ground. Their betters have never had a more useful pack of idiots.

Freedom of expression is also guaranteed under the Charter, however, there are instances where this right can be suppressed. American First Amendment free speech rights are no doubt stronger than are our Charter rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. As for religion, the American constitution, which was drafted mainly by Enlightenment thinkers, actually guarantees freedom from religion by forbidding the establishment of a state religion more than it does freedom of religion. It's a historical irony that U.S. has become perhaps the most religious of Western societies. As for the Preamble to the Charter, which reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." I cannot think of a single SCC Charter ruling that cites the supremacy of God as justification for a decision. If you know of one, please reference it. I suspect the wording like other traditional aspects, including the role of the monarchy, is intended as symbolic rather than substantive. The rule of law, on the other hand, remains the operative principle governing our institutions.

Two more articles today in the Globe & Mail, articulating just how unbalanced the CanAm relationship is. Canadian media has been scared to death at the prospect of Trump leaving NAFTA, and for good reason....Canada has no good alternatives ready to go. Canada needs NAFTA far more than the United States.

Omni, Omni, Omni. When will you ever give up on your constant whining and crying about Trump. The man has done nothing to you ever but yet you go on and on and on about Trump as if he were your President. It is becoming quite clear that you do appear to be suffering from TDS(Trump Derangement Syndrome). It's time to seek some help for your TDS problem. It is getting really bad. The only one that is conning any and everyone here in Canada is your dear leader Saul Alinsky, oops I mean Trudeau. Trudeau tales your tax dollars and blows it willy-nilly and yet Trump is your enemy. Pathetic.

I thought the tariff on ballpoint pens was making a bold statement on our part

And yet, it was Canada's foreign minister (Chrystia Freeland) who stood up in Parliament and bemoaned the loss of American resolve to protect the "post WW2" order. Why won't those pesky Americans keep paying the most in blood and treasure ? Canada certainly doesn't want to pay more....far easier to be a NATO deadbeat.

Thanks for this Scott. Regards DL

I don't "favour" it. It's just a fact that certain media are more biased - or "sectarian" - than others. I think it's fair to say that they are all biased to one extent or another - it's human nature. That said, The Star has consistently been a Liberal shill for decades - crafting their stories almost entirely around Liberal press releases and columnists slagging all things Conservative. They have vehemently been an anti-Ford crusader.....and as my previous post indicated, they are at it again - one day into Ford's premiership.

I think we need to look at the future implications of mass migration. The more a society struggles to cope with uncontrolled migration, the more benefits will have to be curtailed for the broader population. As the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted: "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." And others, including the British economist Sir Paul Collier, have noted that one of the significant impacts of open large-scale migration is to undermine social cohesion, whereby established taxpaying citizens tend to lose interest in paying for expensive programs that disproportionately benefit those in the population who haven't paid into these programs. So, accepting mass migration as either desirable or inevitable brings with it a whole host of other implications that many might be very hesitant to accept, including likely declining support for universal health care and pension programs. We may have to move to the American system, where those who are eligible to receive these benefits are mainly those who've paid into them for decades. Those progressives who think we can have open migration within a welfare state based on anything close to universal access are burying their heads in the sand.

I think if a country's own scientific advisors are saying that policies are causing environmental damage, and that advice is ignored you can make a case that damages are owed to those who suffer as a result. Who "owns" the environment is immaterial.

Why would anyone be either proud or ashamed of conditions of their birth? People need only be proud of such things in the face of shaming.