cannuck

As seems to be your pattern: you present the outliers to justify the murder of hundreds of times more innocent vicitms. They are two very different things, but to you, they are all wearing the gold star, so they should go straight to the gas chamber.

Being responsible means using birth control or abstinance. Murdering your child is about as far away from "being responsible" as you can get.

It is the very definition of capital punishment - without any conviction by jury of peers. That is better known as murder.

So, the one in ten thousand pregnacies due to rape means we should condemn the other 999 to death? You are so right. It is apples to oranges. One is a convicted criminal, the other is an innocent victim. I guess I can see how socialists get elected: they use the same kind of logic in selecting their representatives.

Right, a life that has developed to commit crime, harm and kill people, teach and encourage others to do the same is sacred. A child who's only offence is to be a possible inconvenience to the mother does not deserve to live. I really can not fathom what could drive the "logic" of a socialist mind.

So, you oppose abortion on demand?

I am just pointing out some facts. I don't advocate killing every person who passes a counterfeit note or defrauds the taxman (in fact, the last one I would give a medal). What I DO believe is that we need to make incarceration a genuine penalty for doing crime. When you lock someone up they should have no contact with anyone except their jailer, their doctor and their priest/minister/rabi/imam/guru. No parole, no association with other inmates, no colour TV, no internet - just 100% time out to think about what they are going to do with their life when they get out.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't really know any criminals (hard core types, not jay walkers)? As you mention, these guys and gals "live a fast life with no regard for the consequence". So you reading about Paul Bernardo is going to scare them into what? a life of ethics and productivity? You think they are not afraid of death but terrified and scared straight by the thought of the country club? Jail is not a deterrent, it is the school of crime. THIS is where they go to learn their trade and recruit or be recruited into criminal associations. It is a badge of honour to do Federal time. - and a privilege to further their career. The rate of recividism rate for Federal offenders in Canada is about 45% IN THE FIRST YEAR. It would be a hell of a lot higher if we caught and/or convicted more than one of the dozens committing serious crimes. Guess what the rate is for dead criminals?

Ever been to KSA? They really don't have much of a problem with street crime. AND: they are not white, male conservatives. You loonie lefties squeel with delight when you murder tens of thousands of children who haven't even been borne yet, but cry the blues if someone doesn't value the life of a black gang banger.

So, your solution is to send them to a country club to learn their criminal ways better and to make broader connections in their criminal network at the taxpayer's expense? Yeah, that's going to fix the problem.

He is sadly long ago deceased. But, we sure raised a lot of shyte when he was "inside".

Actually, it is the bureaucrats that do this. Politicians just don't give a flying purple frick about it, and sure as fell never know enough about their ministry to keep this kind of crap from happening. A good friend of mine once ran for provincial leg. He was elected (I was his campaign manager) and became Minister. Day one, right after being sworn into cabinet, we all sat down with his DM, ADM and senior staff. They told him they would now tell him how his department worked, but he shocked them all by telling them "it's been a long, hard campaign, so I am going to take month off to recover". The bureaucrats just started wringing their hands with joy - a new Minister even more uninterested than the last. They would have their way with this dumb farmer. A month later, he walked back in and opened the meeting with: "I have met with every employee of this department over the last month, so sit down with me and I will tell YOU how this department is going to work." He did. A lot of heads rolled, the department went from being headlines for the wrong reasons and started to show up a very good news stories - including those about how much spending had been reduced. Not all politicians are idiots and assholes.

I would like my Rural Municipality to pass a bylaw making shooting a trespasser quite acceptable. No different from a reserve (essentially and RM) making their own drug laws. Jurisdiction at the appropriate level of government is a pretty big deal. Drug regulation and enforcement is pretty much a Federal matter - thus why I raised my eyebrows when the Feds gave that up to the provinces. Then again: the provinces already do that with alcohol, so why not other drugs? Either way, WAY out of the league of a municipal level of government - that gets back to the "First Nations = sovereign nation-within-a-nation" issue. Are you listening, PQ???

I have dealt with the issues surrounding aboriginal reserves and the rights of Canadians with respect to them for decades. Any notion that you can have a "nation within a nation" is ludicrous, and these kinds of issues are what prove my point. https://globalnews.ca/news/4662901/fsin-legal-action-saskatchewan-first-nations-cannabis/ The idea that some plot of FEDERAL CROWN LAND, located within a provincial border can exist as a "First Nation" and decide on its own what laws do and do not apply is, I repeat, LUDICROUS. But that simple bit of common sense has eluded generations of idiot bureaucrats and lawyers. Since the pot fiasco started, I have been patiently waiting how reserves - with their propensity for use of intoxicants - would deal with it. Well, now we know. FSIN claims that the Provinces - given such authority by the Feds (on who's land the aboriginals live and from who's tax cup they drink rather freely) have no authority to regulate and enforce on reserve. One precedent is personal property laws - a bank can not enter a reserve (without permission) to act on a security agreement, for instance. Ordered my popcorn this morning.

Problem is: neither we nor almost all of the rest of the world really understand what is good economics and what is really bad. So, we/they embrace the really bad (which is speculative gain run wild). If one grants the privilege to banksters to use all of the money they can lay their hands on for nothing but wealth redistribution, nothing is left for productive work that creates wealth (at a much lower rate than the "money for nothing" of speculative transactions). There is no money available to find the "virtuous" efforts of man if we simply give a tiny part of the world population access to ALL of the money for nothing but speculative economic suicide. As far as Canada vs. everywhere else goes: about 40 years ago, we sold our businesses and set out to find the best place in the world to raise children. I had a contract that allowed/required extensive travel and communication internationally, and we short listed the places that met most (none met all) of our ideals. We ended up moving to SK - sure glad we did. Depending on how one applies the metrics for reference, you can make ANY country look good or bad. I voted with my wallet and over a year's work for Canada. Well, specifically WESTERN Canada (I am from the East but at that time we lived in the North). As fa as the CF 106 goes: I have had several friends who were young engineers in that programme, and one of my former business associates was the RCAF acceptance test pilot for the F-104 (I still fly today with one of his squadron mates). B-C hit that one right on the head. The airplane was redundant but the intent was to try to build a Canadian military aviation industry. As with anything else government tries to do - the result was total fiscal and economic disaster. BTW: The 104 was strictly and interceptor - never intended for strike.

This is something that bothers me to no end. It is almost as if the entire government and all of its bureaucracies have never heard of Hertz, Avis, etc. Clearly, what they HAVE heard of is how to dig deeply into my back pocket.

I struggle with turningrite's point regularly. While nationalism seems somehow to be a good thing (for the nation involved) the colonial era and nacent nationaistic era resulted in some pretty big conflicts. While globalism as a governing idea is naiive at the very least, globalism as an economic and geopolitical ideal has some merit. The recovery of China from its horribly failed experiment with communism (yes, I am more than a little aware that the Chico party still runs the place) it was the whole business of inviting China into the global community that brought all of the bad and good things about it to materialize. That means..at least at this juncture...no military conflict from colonialist ambitions. Similarly NoKo may well get into step from the genuine capitalist pig Trump "globalizing" NoKo into becoming a lot less nationalistic. I don't like the "progressive" interpretation of globalism, and I don't fully agree it is a corporate agenda driven thing, but I like it a lot better than returning to the colonialist/nationalist military struggles that defined much of the 20th century.

Again, it is not about cherry picking individual situations to fit your idealistic worldview, but appreciating the proportions that were involved.

Amazing how the idealism and revisionist history stuff melts away with the passing years.

But, none could compete with France for the sheer numbers.

It is not the invasions that make me more than a little bit testy about froggy - it was the collaborators. I may live in Canada, but have spent a LOT of time and have very close friends and business ties to a country that has been overrun by France and Spain a number of times. I have no respect for them at all. BTW: BC hit it right on the head with his deGaulle/LBJ post.

Strategically they can do NOTHING without the US. Reality is the "threat" is Russia and Yurp just doesn't have the military might to stand as a check to Russia should Uncle Vlad ever want to project his Joe Stalin personna (and that is a REAL possibility). Just to frame the argument: Do you know why the French plant Lombardy poplars along the roads in Alsace-Lorraine? - so the German army can march in the shade.

There is some important symbolism here: He is their Commander in Chief. Further, the representative of the state that sent those troops and paid a LOT of the bills to put them back on their feet after WWII.

Let's boil this down to the fundamentals: the Euro-weenies keep shitting in their own nest and the rest of their colonies - Yanks included - have to step in and clean up their mess. Macron has no high ground to snipe at Trump.

You sound like my Brother from another Mother.