PrimeNumber

I thnk the main candidates right now are LV, Portland and Seattle. Portland has an arena and potential owner. If Seattle can get Tukwila approved they will more than likely have a team. To big of an actual hockey market to pass up. Bettman has said before that no teams will ever relocate to another conference again. What that means for the coyotes remains to be seen. Quebec has the arena and a buyer ready so its really up to the BoG to decide at this point.

It's a right. 1. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers. Legally,that sentance would stand up in any court of Canada as an enumerated right for Canadian citizens to healthcare.

I wish them luck with their capitol in Venezuala's extremely corrupt system. We don't want those kinds of investors in our country anyways.

A flat tax and Basic Guaranteed Income is the same thing communist countries used to put into place?

No healthcare is definitely a constitutional right in Canada... one that Harper sure loves to undermine. Though he has never been one for the Constitution or the Charter of Rights. Hey look BC2004 constitutional rights can in fact be underminded! Look out they're comin' fer yer guns!!! Everybody into the backyard bunker!!

Yup, the USA is proud of their homegrown extremists.

You're still trying to copare insurgents overseas to insurgents in their own country? Have I not taught you anything?

Yeaah because the United States government has absolutely no guns, ammunition, aircraft, vehicles and heavy artillery at its disposal.

Honestly trying to compare the British-American war and Vitenam war to a Civil War in the states over gun rights is ridiculous... especially in Americas patriotism in winning the war... its hilarious actually.. Both were remote wars where there was little overwhelming need for the occupying power to actually win, fighting a motivated local army that crucially had massive support from a rival super-power as part of a proxy war to weaken the occupying power. In both cases there was a split in the locals, some who supported the occupying power, which makes the "brave patriotic locals resisting the occupiers" narrative somewhat simplistic and overated. Ultimately though, it simply wasn't worth fighting that hard. The value of the country at stake wasn't worth the cost of the war when the locals could draw on someone else's resources. It is not appreciated that USA just wasn't that significant to England. Economically Jamaica was far more important at the time. Of the two conflicts, UK probably came out of the defeat relatively well. Perhaps better than USA in Vietnam. Even the backers didn't always profit from their proxy-victory. France bankrupted itself in funding the war in order to weaken UK, which led indirectly to its revolution in 1789. Anywas thats neither here nor there. Just thought I'd clarify that for you.

You also seem to forget that the British had to fight a war overseas as did the American with the Vietcong and had no where near the capacity they could have if the war had been fought right next door to them. This would be a Civil War which has a lot different implications than a war fought overseas. I have a great understanding of history, like how the US had help from the French, cutting off British supply lines which created a very expensive war for Britain. If America tried to take the fight to Britain they would have suffered a defeat pure and simple. Again good luck with that 'Murica.

Like I said good luck with that, maybe you can send a carrier pigeon to France to help you out again.

Like I said good luck with enforcing that on your government. Yeah I'm sure the United States Armed Forces did everything in their power to defeat those Iraqi insurgents. It really is laughable that gun owners think they could ever take on their own government. If that happens the entire country splits up anyways and become less of a super power so really it's just win-win for the rest of the world including China. By all means America, get into a civil war with your own government over the right to own a gun... Not really trying that hard? Could you tell me what the difference would be fighting for another country and fighting to keep your own? Pretty obvious.

hahaha nice try the British didn't have Drones. Plus France won't come help you this time either. Good luck with that one, let me know when you try.

That may be true but that number will fall when subsidies are removed.

They assure the population "that the State will always have the populace's best interests at heart, interests that the State tell the populace are in its best interests........noncompliance results in a visit by agents of the State, armed with guns no doubt, to ensure said interest's of the State are complied with." Gun owners laughably think they could ever stand up to the State if they did anything to piss them off. Try standing up to a government that can pick you off with a drone strike before you even know it's flying above you. hahaha guns give gun owners far more confidence in that endeavor than they should have.

No, the governments on the side of the gun owners do that too.

It's funny that the same governments that are on the side of gun owners are typically on the side that favours less mental health treatment and continuing drug prohibition. People like Harper and Bush.

We do have many advantages based on geography and population density. But countries with far less land and higher population density regularly out preform us in the Agricultural indisutry even with our subsidies.. this list includes China, the US, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria. In fact without our subsidies we would probably fall from our $100 billion mark. Russia which has low population and more prime geographical locations is in the $50 billion range. They also have far less agricultural subsidies than us and a declining agricultural industry. Though their entire agricultural industry had to shift its focus after the fall of the soviet union in 1990.

We also have to remember that many of these mass shootings have less to do with poverty and more to do with hatred. Shootings of a particular race, gender or social status.

They missed Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista, California 2014 - 7 dead, 7 wounded They missed Ford Hood, Texas - 3 dead, 17 wounded They missed Bradley William Stone in Montgomery County, PA - 6 dead, 3 wounded Unknown in Cleveland, OH - 5 dead All of these in 2014, Which makes me question weather or not they have every single shooting on there or just picked and choose what they wanted to include.

This is how many billions of dollars go into direct subsidies for each agricultural sector worldwide. I think the only reasonable reason to do it is because other countries do it. Canada just can't compete without it. Otherwise we have less profits, less profits means they can be less competative and eventually our agricultural industry fizzles out.

I have many tattoos acquired throughout my life. I don't regret a single on of them. Ultimately for me it comes down to art. It's tough to explain but when you want one, you want one and when you get one, you want another. I suppose it's like asking someone who wants a fast car, why they want a fast car? The answer they will probably give you is to go fast. Some may say a status symbol. The answer to why people want to get tattoos is because.. they want to get a tattoo. It can be a form of expression, much like having a fast car says, "Hey look at how much money I have."

Mostly to stay competative both domestically and abroad. Other countries in a given year may have better climate or lower wages resulting in what may be a cheaper product. Some food would without a doubt be cheaper to the consumer but at the cost of our own Agricultural sector. Most countries have some form of agricultural sbsidies as well, making our product even weaker without them.

It states in their FAQ that each individual family chooses where and how they pledge their wealth, the real message is the promise to do so.

Yeah I think it's a silly way of helping the Farmers. We should just have direct subsidies to all agricultural sectors. Our product should learn to compete on the open international market on it's own.