Leaderboard

Two days pot is league and you are reduced to some sort of stoned jargon. Get back to me when the buzz is off. Or buzz off. Or whatever. I think you might try answer in Ojibiwa. It would be easier to understand,

Start another thread whether that is truly a Sanatic hand gesture or him simply drying nails after a manicure. As for this thread with all due respect, its about whether we should spend time and taxpayer money for a bunch of snot nosed self proclaimed experts to discuss racism. In regards to Satanism I know Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan personally. They both have had my spawn. Its too late to save humanity from us. We shapeshift everywhere dude. Why just last week people mistook me for a large lizard. Now the legalization of pot. I will for sure be mistaken as an alligator. I look like Ted Cruz....green and jello like.

Most people, whether Americans or not, get the 2nd Amendment wrong. Within the United States, both sides of the spectrum also get it wrong. This is because we have allowed the NRA to set the debate, so all positions both for and against the second amendment tend to follow their preferred language. (The opponents in this country and abroad simply add "what a horrible idea" to it, but they're still following the wrong reasoning.) The NRA argument is thus: the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so that, if the U.S. government were to become tyrannical, the people--using their privately-owned firearms--could overthrow the government and establish a new one that would re-assert their rights and liberties. If we take away all privately-owned firearms, or even some of them, they say, it will gradually turn the U.S. government into a dictatorship. What the members of the first Congress REALLY intended was this. They believed putting a large, standing army into the hands of the federal government was a bad idea. It was antithetical to liberty, they reasoned, to have a centralized army like that. Instead, maintain and arm the state militias. Should there be an emergency that requires the army to assemble, the bulk of its manpower will come from the state militias. Congress at any time can call the units of the state militias (today called the national guard) into the service of the United States. The only way to have state militias was to allow the people to stay armed, so when it was called up, they'd have their own arms. (Other arms like field artillery would of course be government-funded, I'll go out on a limb and assume that few Americans at the time owned their own cannon.) The federal and state governments at the time were more minimalist; taxation was much lower (there was no payroll "income tax" at all) so they didn't want to have to pay for everyone's musket or rifle. It made sense to have armed private citizens if you were going to place the bulk of America's manpower in the hands of the states. The founding fathers did not, however, assume that "just in case the government becomes tyrannical, we'll need to overthrow it so let the people have arms." That's complete b.s. No government has ever planted within its founding document the seeds of its own eventual destruction. That's a ridiculous idea. Rather than the NRA's assumed "just in case", the founders came up with a way to make sure that didn't happen to begin with: keep the manpower out of the hands of the feds, period. That way, it can't GET tyrannical in the first place! Up to the second world war, this model of placing most of the manpower in the states was used. It was the necessities of the second world war and the cold war which followed, that required a standing armed forces in a way that would have startled the founders. The second amendment was a great idea. It's just a pity that most peoples' interpretation of the second amendment is so incredibly off the target.

I've heard similar problems from friends of mine and had similar experiences myself. It seems the only way to NOT oppress certain ones is to allow them their "right" to oppress others.

Please. You engage when you selectively feel like it. Save it Saint Michael of the Hardner. Regards, Rue of the Ruins

Worth is not the correct wording as on the contrary He worth shit like all other mullahs but yes he has accumulated a wealth of $300 by stealing from poor starving nation and his corrupt actions. The day of reckoning is close for all these murderous subhumans.

In 1984 someone drove into the side of my car and left. I assume the driver was Brett Kavanaugh

What people are naive about is in thinking that Trudeau's promise of openness and transparency would actually be a 'thing'

Won't make any difference for Canadian stoners....the U.S. border beckons them as the gateway to what Canada is lacking. Mexicans and Canadians want in...it's hard to keep them out !

Go further. Don't let any foreigners who have tried weed enter America. It's illegal according to your Feds, no matter what individual states decide. Sessions would love it. You might lose many billions in tourism dollars, but who cares? You can make your billions selling more arms to the Saudis. Journalists critical of the regime are just SJW's anyway. Who needs them?

Florida is suppose to be under water....ever heard of the Everglades ? My guess is that many thousands of Canadians who go there to escape from their own nation's weather will have to just go to another red state like Texas or Arizona. U.S. is still doing better on emissions reductions that Canada. Yawn...several states legalized weed years ago, without any worries or concern about what Canadian border guards would think about it. That is the BIG DIFFERENCE. I agree that all convicted criminals from Canada should be denied entry into the USA....pardon or no pardon.

You just keep telling yourself that. It's 'What me worry?' while Rome burns. My guess is Florida will be under water and the Republicans will be saying humans haven't impacted climate change and rising tides are just part of the natural cycle. Yes weed, another example of our greater freedom. I'll give you the snowbird tourism. You guys should ban anyone who has ever tried weed from entering the U.S.. That way Canadians and Europeans won't spend any more hard-earned money down there. I'm sure you don't mind Disney folding. We have all the same cheap outlet mall crap you do, cheaper now here due to your tariffs on China. All the high flyer decadence too: Saks, Nordstrom, Simons. No need to shop south.

The door swings and has swung far more one way than the other...far more Canadians voting with their feet regardless of politics. Going to the USA is a..."Canadian value"....whether it be emigration, snowbird tourism, cross border shopping, American media, faster access to abortions, etc., etc. Access to the U.S. border is being debated yet again in Canada because of all the stoners who want their criminal records pardoned now that weed is legal.

Pure fiction, though we did get some Yanks up here after the travel ban. I know many progressives down there like it up here. Maybe you should consider a Canamerican States of America where the Dem states join us. Bet they'd love Trudeau presiding over Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Maine, and many others. I know, Republicans' worst nightmare. Hey, you keep courting western Canada. The door swings both ways.

Nope....the conversation will continue to repeat because Canadian net migration losses will continue to repeat. The America haters never have a good answer for this fact....except to blame it on better weather. Canada's best and brightest know they can be better and brighter by leaving Canada for the "evil" USA.

Please elaborate. Drive-by insinuations hardly contribute to rational debate, after all. Or are you just dog-whistling?

https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-korea-continues-construction-of-nuclear-research-facility-despite-agreement-to-denuclearize-report https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/22/north-korea-still-developing-nuclear-weapons-iaea-report-un https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/north-korea-still-making-nukes-trump-admin-now-taking-much-n907651 Never said any such thing. I said they don't deliberately lie. FOX is not a news channel. It is an entertainment channel. Entertainment is its primary purpose, not news. This according to the owner. And yet it virtually never happens.

I just sent an emotional support squirrel to your back yard. Free of charge.

A good friend of mine who is Chinese raises exactly the same point. He says the Chinese in Canada (and elsewhere) can and generally do quite well without interventionist assistance but also sardonically notes that if governments are offering preferential treatment to minorities his community will generally and quietly accept the unnecessary boost. It's telling when lobby groups like BLM note that racism impacts them differently than it does other groups, which appears to be an admission that members of some groups succeed quite well despite facing some degree of racism while others don't. It tends to undermine the bizarre notion that a blanketing form of "systemic" racism is at the root of the problem. In fact, racism exists everywhere, and likely to a lesser extent here than in many other places. Adaptation and integration have never been seamless processes for minority groups throughout this country's history, which renders it bizarre as to why some figure the situation today is different or any worse than it was in the past.

What's with the sudden anti-cannabis crusade on CBC? Little late now. Someone should tell them, it's like closing the barn doors after the horse is gone out.

My perception is that public sector wages tend to converge toward the middle, with less skilled workers enjoying better compensation than that paid in comparable private sector roles while more educated and skilled workers often face lower compensation than that paid in comparable roles in the private sector. During my career, I worked on both sides of the divide and this perception was pretty much confirmed for me. The biggest difference between the two kinds of workplaces related more to quality of work and performance, where I believe the private sector was vastly more consistent in comparison to the public one and this applied to performance expectations at all job levels, albeit there were still some outstanding performers in the public sector who were mainly driven by personal pride, intelligence and good work habits. The prevailing mentality in the public sector, however, was that there was little point in working too hard to accomplish much because you got the same pay as those in your position who accomplished little and the work not done by non-performers was often foisted on the productive staff. In other words, it was a system governed by disincentives.

It's more likely that he tripled the immigration rate at the behest of his corporate backers, who wanted to exert downward pressure on wages as they and the government moved to implement a globalist agenda. Large scale immigration to Western countries in an environment where jobs are at the same time being "off-shored" to low wage countries is a component of corporate globalism, which imposes a far-ranging system of wage arbitrage.

Fixed it for ya.

If I were you I would be writing letters to the governments of India and China or have you done so already? No one from the global climate people seem to want to go after China or India as much as they want to blame and go after North Americans. Instead they want North Americans to cut back. What silly bs nonsense. North Americans are doing nothing harmful to global warming compared to how much India and China are doing to climate change today. So, what are you doing today to try and stop global warming? Let's hear it.

US greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since, and are projected to continue to decline gradually over the coming years, even with the relatively "anti-environment" policies of the current administration. Yes, with more effort they could be made to decline a bit faster. On the other hand, China, India, and SE Asia are increasing emissions at a rate that far outpaces any impact that could possibly be made in the developed world. Every 10 years, the CO2 output of Asia increases by an amount equal to the entire current emissions of the US. Whether the US cuts emissions by 5% or 8% over the next decade makes virtually no impact when China and India will be emitting an entire extra America's worth of emissions by then. This is where the "environmental justice" people totally ignore reality. They talk about "historical emissions", etc. But what's been done in the past cannot be changed, all that can be affected is the future. And there is no way to significantly impact total world CO2 output without focusing almost exclusively on China, India, and SE Asia, which together are responsible for over 90% of all the growth in emissions, while the Western world is already gradually reducing its output. You just can't argue with the math. The US and Europe could cut their output to 0 and we would still shoot right past the 2C target all the way to >4C, without even missing a beat.