poochy

As his fact and evidence based government plan has already changed, this change should be pretty easy as well.

I see, so the article must be untrue and you must be correct. Well, im completely convinced. Of course anything is possible, you could be right, but in lieu of any evidence to that affect I will probably believe the report over your theories and at the same time wonder at the ease of which some of you delude yourselves in order to make the world fit your point of view.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

If you keep that up you will never get out of that pretzel shape. Liberals complain former government is anti science, appoint anti science, science minister, liberal voters don't understand conflict. I will admit, this is pretty complicated, for some.

Somehow accepting reality is giving in to fear...sure. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

it matters that the last government was right, and the new one, along with people like you, were always obviously wrong.

I had written a response, but apparently I wasn't nice enough when I gave my version of the truth in response to this, so i'll see if I can get this one past the goalie, you seem to be either incapable of seeing the point in the proper context, or are being purposefully obtuse.

keep deflecting.

Simply to not be the other guy.

Horrible, but it can't happen here, no need for precautions.

Another deflection and irrelevant taken in the context of this super sciency (of course that was bs) government, the nose on your face, it's that obvious.

Again I question the sanity of people who ignore that this new and sunny government promised a new fact based way of doing things and then they immediately appointed someone as minister of science, who believes strongly in unscientific things, and not only that, appears to have some other, issues. This is akin to the conservatives having appointed Stockwell Day Minister of evolution, but of course the conservatives didn't pretend that everyone else was anti science and then promote themselves as the beacons of facts and evidence like the liberals have, while then immediately proving that to be entirely untrue. O, People should be qualified for the jobs they hold...how can the minister of science be qualified if she promotes medical therapies without scientific evidence? She isn't, and the liberals are proven to be liars once again, how many days/lies has it been? There is obviously no concern for science in her appointment, the concern for appearances to be sure, but that is what they are always best at.

Two wrongs, etc, you haven't noticed the liberals new and sunny ways, the fact and evidence based decision making promises? Anyway, the conflict here between the promises the liberals campaigned on and the realty of this woman's beliefs and credentials is so strong i have to question the sanity of anyone who either can't see it or who refuses to accept the stupidity of it.

Right, the new evidence based decision making liberals now get a pass when the minister of SCIENCE chooses to believe in a medical treatment without their being any evidence to give reason for that belief. Who are the unscientific ones now?

Yea, i mean, it's almost like it's impossible that not being part of it might be worse than signing on to it.

Honestly, you standard rants are incredibly boring. Fyi, you aren't a better person than Argus, or me, or anyone, no matter how much your liberal arrogance has lead you to believe otherwise. You are simply incapable of defending your little rants, and run back to this well every time. So this woman is clearly not very scientific, and is now a minister of science, your response to that is just derision about conservatives not caring about science anyway, which of course is utter garbage, your modus operandi, so tell us, Mr Science, what are your credentials, just what expertise do you have that allows you to judge who knows or cares about science?

So wait, they same people who on this forum advocate for marijuana in part because of its natural health benefits, the people who deride the former government for not legalizing it are now worried that they allowed other natural health products to be approved. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Im not allowed to properly describe why some of you are so obtuse.

What are your science credentials?

Well sure, but the negative comments come from actual Dr's and scientists, while the positive comments or excuses for her, come from her, or the people who also share her unscientific beleifs.

So this is great, the scientific evidence and fact based decision making liberals named as science minister some who believes in unproven, and perhaps disproved medical treatments, this appointment is receiving some criticism from the medical community. "“This is the most curious appointment since Caligula named his horse as consul,” said McGill University’s Dr. Michael Rasminsky" On a different topic she received this sort of criticism, "She was “a megalomaniac, a control freak,” John Oxford, a renowned British flu expert" The article is quite telling, and it doesn't bode well for the country if the minister of science might be incompetent when it comes to making important policy like that on climate change, how bad are the rest of them? Of course she blames at least some of this on any number of ism's, which im sure we can look forward to more of in the future if we feel the need to criticize any of these 'very qualified' picked as part of a quota ministers. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeaus-new-science-minister-kirsty-duncan-was-advocate-of-controversial-and-largely-disproven-ms-treatment

When adults doing what they want expect to be taken care of by the nanny state after making their bad choices then those adults shouldn't expect complete freedom. But that is an aside to the waterfall of false narratives that you spew on a daily basis, i know lots of people who would be considered conservative who are all for legalization, who are regular users, however that doesn't mean they aren't aware or are unwilling to accept the likely negative consequences to that. Unlike those who consider it a perfect, completely harmless, wonder drug, when it isn't. I say legalize it, im good with it, but I don't claim to know what that will mean, or what exact consequences good or bad, there will be as a result. Reasonable adults think about these things and are more concerned about that then they are some peoples desperation for legal weed, it simply isn't that important, certainly not if legalizing it is a net negative. There is no doubt that there are negative consequences, there is plenty of science to prove it, so much for a scientific approach that so many of you whinge about almost daily, yes, other legal things are bad, and can be worse, but unless you believe in unicorns you have to accept that more people getting more high more often isn't something we should be excited for. Again, despite that i say legalize it, and maybe you could take a day off from your empty rhetoric, though it does seem to be what liberals are best at.

Really great.

Maybe the media should pretend she's Trudeau, im sure the tone of the questions and the answers would be somewhat different. But she is a conservative, and therefore a bad person, so that won't happen.

American Dad, Season 7, Episode 8, For Whom The Sleigh Bell Tolls, the war has begun.