Leaderboard

If you're so certain you should write a paper and submit it to the IPCC. Do you realize what would happen if you could demonstrate and prove scientifically that there is no reason whatsoever for concern? You`d be a shoo-in for the biggest Nobel Peace prize in the history of the prize - you'd receive millions in prize money, schools would be named in your honour, women would be throwing their panties at you. I for one will definitely be looking forward to the most important scientific news in the history of science. It'll be kind of exciting knowing that a MLW poster saved us uncountable trillions in wasted money and time fighting a non-existent problem.

No, not every religious person uses its position to prioritize their religion. But the all of those that cannot give up their symbols, they do. It is a weak fallacy to say that bill 21 is futile just because one religious person can still prioritize its beleif without wearing symbols. It is like saying it is pointless to request a criminal investigation on a candidat that wants to be a teacher, because some pedophiles have not criminal cases yet. Nope, we filter those we are pretty sure that can't distance themselve from religious rules and that is a good start. Regarding the woman's turban, I was pointing out the irony to shake Argus' opinion that the first "victims/targets" were muslim women.

Tragically, people who are dumb enough to believe nonsense like this are allowed to cast a vote that is counted with the same weight of that of a normal sentient adult human.

It's only a small benefit anyway. What was it last year? $12,000. The year before, 11.5. Expect it would have been 12,500 or so this year, so this adds up to an additional $2500 dollars tax free. So what. The income tax is about $500 - 700 dollars. Hardly a big yay.

That all sounds really profound jacee but the status quo isn't so bad that we're in a position like Venezuela or Iran where we need to blow it up and start from scratch. Also, there are certain types of corporations that are worth helping out. SNC isn't one of them because if other companies are winning bids on major Canadian construction projects instead of SNC then SNC will be laying people off and others will be hiring. Bombardier is the type of company that it's worthwhile helping out somewhat because every job lost there goes out of the country. The Conservatives aren't into the mud-slinging game, that's Lib territory. The number of unsubstantiated accusations by the Liberals in a year is up into the thousands. Racist, xenophobe, anti-semite, islamophobe, homophobe, etc, etc. A month ago Trudeau was talking about how politicians can't be forgiven for things they said on social media when they were in high school. Now he wants absolution for something he did 5 years after he graduated university. The hypocrisy, the double-standard is just too much. You know that saying "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time?" Well, going from Trudeau's comments about how to treat other people to how he should be treated is like eating that elephant in one bite. The status quo for Libs is "old stock canadians suck, quebecers are better than the rest of the country, terrorists are ok people, Alberta oil and coal are the two worst things on the planet but Saudi oil and chinese coal are ok..." There's not even any common sense in it. They feel like by vilifying western-Canadian everything at every turn and being pro-foreign countries proves that they're on moral high ground and completely beyond reproach.

Hillary is a power-hungry moron, she's a felon, and she has been caught on huge lies about actual material facts (things like how and why people needlessly died due to horrible decisions when they were under her command/protection). It's also well-documented that she colluded with Russia, so even if she won she would have been impeached by her own Democrat party by now, right? I get that you hate Trump, but you could just say that you hate Trump. That post was irrational at the very best.

It isn't the fear of racism. It's the fear that if they acknowledge it then someone is likely to ask what they intend to do about it. And none of them have the balls to confront the issue as the reserves, particularly the Mohawk reserves, are quite hostile to Canadian police on their territory and likely to resist any attempt to stop smuggling.

Liberals don't even know what an assault rifle is so how can they ban them. An AR15 style rifle is a semi-Automatic, not an assault weapon. Soldiers use assault weapons in battle not Canadian citizens doing target practice defending their homes, hunting or protecting their farms.

Do you have any kind of credible* proof that this is the plan, or have you just pulled this opinion out of someone else's alt-right a$$? *credible proof = A: actual statements by the government on their website, on Facebook, on Twitter, in an interview, in publically released policy documents; B: documents or policies leaked to responsible, trustworthy journalists or media outlets - like someone did with the initial brownface photo.

Argus made it too wide. The rules apply only on people in a position of authority. It does affect the confidence you can have in such services. If one is ready to sacrifice a job opportunity because of its religious symbol, it is highly possible that this person would rather choose its religious values against the rules of the society, when they are in contradiction. When you are not capable to take your distance from your religion rules, you can be in conflict of interests. In justice, appearance of conflict of interests are as much damageable as real conflict of interests. Whether the person would do it or not is irrelevent. That is why you cannot be a judge of a case where one member of your family is in. even if you are capable to be impartial. The appearance of conflict of interests is enough to justify that you are not selected to be judge of such case. Usually, a judge pull itself out because they are perfectly aware of this principle. The same principle applies on any position of authority. I'll give you an example of a fictive religion. The religion ABC has these 2 rules: 1) You must wear a hat having the shape of a S on your head. 2) If a boy and a girl are arguing against one another, the girl has the right to give her opinion but, the boy has the last say. Now how this is going on in our society? Men and women are equal, so the rule number 2 is not acceptable. The follower of such religion cannot make a point with that. But if the person of such religion is in a position of authority. How can you be sure that this person is capable to take a decision that respect our value of equality of men and women, instead of respecting the rule of its religion? There are no way to be 100% sure, but there is a way to reject a big bunch of indoctrinated people. You forbid the religious symbols for a position of authority, how can we make sure it won't abuse of its power? Does that person is capable to take its distance from a religion, can it accept to remove the symbol to proove it? If not, it means the same person will most likely override our society's choices with its religious rules. Even if a specific individual wouldn't, the risk is too high and we are in a situation of conflict of interests that I explain. That is why this bill 21 exists. To make sure it is understood that secularism prevails. As I explained in another post, in english canada, you guys mix up two facets of the religion into one cloud that you call religion. For us, the spirituality and the political rules of a religion are 2 different facets and they are considered differently. That is why here in Québec, although we allow every one to beleive in anything, we do not allow anyone to do whatever in any circumstances. Unlike you guys do with few exceptions. Well, I beleive Argus is right and alot of people in english Canada are totally fine with bill 21 and might want the same. How many, that is another story and I do not know the answer. You might decide to call us stupid as much as you want. But your opinion rather demonstrate the other way around.