Benz

I am sure O'Leary knows how to play cards for his own benefits but, leading the country is another story. However, it can be easy for him to put the Spotlight on the huge spending Trudeau has done right in the beginning at the expense of our future. I agree with you that regarding the economy, O'Leary will probably have a serious advantage over Trudeau. We could possibly see another sort of "it's the economiy, stupid!" during a debate and it would just be the perfect slap in the face. Harper did serious efforts to learn french and it gave him alot of credibility. It has paid off even if he never scored big in the province. The popularity of the liberals is still stronger with Trudeau than it was with any of their previous leaders since Jean Chrétien. Even if it is now possible to get a majority without Québec, it still is a big handicap to not grab a substential number of seats. I think the chances of Marine Le Pen to make it for the second round are very high. I would not be surprise if she ends up first place in the first round. However, to win the presidential in the second round, she needs the perfect scenario. Which would be to fight against the very pro european Macro. Other than that, it will be the all-against-FN again and her opponent will win easily.

It's definitely a false start to win Québec's vote when you are born and raised here and speak no french. We honestly have a very bad opinion of the English speaking people living here that makes no effort to even understand and speak a little french. Big problem for O'Leary but, it's not all set. If he manages to learn enough french to make him look familiar with it, the Québécois will easily forgive that and would not hold any amertume on him. After all, Québec eventually felt in love with Jack Layton. So it's not impossible for O'Leary. I have seen O'Leary only once at the show Tout le monde en parle. I remember him just because of that show but, I did not remember his name. I Googled it before I post in this thread and this is how I remembered him. From the little I know about him, I doubt very much this guy can win the trust of the Québécois. But I do not know him that much so, I'll keep alot of reserves about this first impression. Regarding English canada, I have no doubts that this guy is capable to say things that could please most of the conservatives people but, can this kind of politics could reach the interests of a majority of people? It looks like he is telling himself, "if Trump can win, I can win", but the political situation is different. Trump is so lucky that Clington represents so much the establishment. Although Trudeau is the puppet of the establishment, it's not obvious that as many canadians see it this way as well.

No it is not. As I already told you, secular is not only for atheists. Even in religious countries there are also secularism. Practicing a religion is a right but, only in a context of spirituality. Laws are made by the people, for the people. Not by gods, for gods. If the people choose a law that is compatible with the saying of a religion, then so be it. But if the people are choosing a law that is not compatible with one of the religion you practice, then too bad. The laws are for everyone and everyone must follow it. It's not a good thing to have different standards based on your belief. I'll give you an example. In some culture, most of the time for religious beliefs, they cut the clitoris of the young girls. They believe it is the will of god. On my country, this is totally illegal. Because the laws have to prorect every one. We have to protect children from their own parents if it is needed. If a girl who eventually become a woman, is asking a private doctor to remove her clitoris, that is her own business. But no adults can force, not even their own children to do that, no matter what their religion says. It happened few times here that parents in the Jehova religion refused treatments or blood transfer to their kids because their religion says it is forbidden. The justice has taken their kid away from them, give the treament and save its life. Under no circumstances, religions should have to power to overpass the human laws. Spirituality is one thing, the justice is something else. The spirituality can have an influence on people that will decide what are the laws, but cannot allow one individual to bypass the laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12] It is not just a lack of belief. It's the belief there are no gods. And agnostism is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Agnosticism is the philosophical view that certain metaphysical claims – such as the existence of God or the supernatural – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".[2]

Indeed, that last sentence was wrong and I changed it. But hernanday is right. The Atheist believe there cannot be such thing as a god. They believe it can't exist. Unlike the agnostics who beleive there could be one, although there are no proof that one exist, because there are also no proof that it can't exist. That is why the atheism is considered as a belief, even if it does not have a religious system, nor specific practices like the other religions.

Kimmy gave you a good answer. I will just add the following. Secularism is more comparable to agnostic than atheism. Because the atheists beleive it is impossible that a god could exist. While the agnostics say that it is possible that god(s) could exist but, the existence of a god is irrelevent. The atheists deny the possibility of a god. The agnostics do not deny the possibility. You can find secularism in countries where religions are very presents and actives. There are muslim countries practicing secularism. I think your country is, or was one of them. Tunesia too? I do not remember for sure. The need for secularism is to allow a clear separation of the state and the religion. It is important for a country having different religions on its soil. Even for a country with one single religion but, with various interpretations or different level of appliance in the practices. I will give you a fictive example. Imagine a country with two different fictive religions, Abism and Baism. When a couple separate, the Abists believe, the man should win all the patrimony for itself. The Baists believe the opposite, the woman should get all of it. This is obviously two opposite values that are not near to get resolved. So in a secular society, the justice (as long as it is not manipulated by one or the other religions) and the politics would probably end up with the conclusion that it is easier and more fair to separate fifty-fifty between the two members of the couple. None of the two religions would be pleased but, both would have equal share and it is an accepting compromise. The advantage of secularism, is to have rules that are not dictated by the religions and are more objectives to reach out a solution. The atheists has nothing to do with it. You can have a secular government and justice and still have not a single atheist in that country.

The Progressive-Conservative party was not exactly the same as the current Conservative party. They were less differences with the liberals as there are today. Without the "progressives", they would have not as much success in Québec. Also, Mulroney was proposing Meech to solve the constitution dead-end. Those two factors were interesting the Québécois alot. The current conservatives are not proposing any solution to bring back Québec into the constitutional giron and they are not flirting with anything progressive. Two essential conditions to make serious gains in Québec. So Argus is right. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Beside the Beauce, the suburd of Quebec city and few country side regions, the conservatives are very unpopular. Not because we hate the conservatives people, because it's very far from our values. There are alot of topics that the conservatives fight for that are not even open for discussion in Québec, such as removing the women's right for abortion. When we listen to conservatives, we have the feeling to hear a re-run of an old serie from the 50's, remastered for UHD. It's just weird.

Indeed. hehe! You give me more orders than my ex wife. I guess you like me. lolll It is true that no countries has the balls to accuse A.S. of supporting terrorism. But I do. Your question was, about Canada supporting terrorists. There you go. They all do.

Yes. We support Saudi Arabia.

You did not prove that all the arrested people are terrorists. I do not have a problem with Erdogan arresting terrorists, I support him. However, what I am asking you is to prove that all the arrested people are terrorists. I am sure there are some of them that are terrorists. However so many has been arrested, it's normal to question and the proof must be provided.

Poor terrorists sacrifying their lives to kill any unfaithful ones, they have not gain your attention yet. Not enough victims for you yet. Same for the obscurantists trying to screw up your values and establish a different society based on the Sharia within your borders. You insult their efforts. In the name of what? Saving a religion as is? Of course Canada does not have a problem with Islam. Canada has a problem with those trying to impose Islam. All religions, including christianism, have few values that are against, or the contrary of the canadian values. When that happen, Canadian should values prevail.

That is not a proof. I understand your point but, you are not proving it. Instead of "excuse" or "opportunity", I would say justification. It's more neutral. There are enough elements to raise the point that foreign influences were attempting to help a coup d'état against a democracy and because of that, strong measures have to be taken. What I am wondering is, he is going too far? Because it is obvious that he is going much further than the failed putsh has justified. You are not making the proof that it is justified to go as far as he is going, but I agree that he had to do something. Personnally, I prefer to not take a side and stay neutral about it. I do not know if he is going too far and I prefer to wait for more information before taking a final decision. If you want to justify all his actions, you have to prove that all those people are bad enough to justify the jail and there were no other options to manage that. Or demonstrate that those news we had so far, are extreme exagerations. It would not be the first time the western worlds are victims of manipulation by our media. You are talking about an old organization settled for a long time. I would not be surprised to be honest but, so far, it all sounds like hearings to me. It would help alot to have concrete demonstrations and evidences of it. If you have any, please provide them to us. You will make your point more easily.

hehe! Just for my curiosity. what is its meaning? I do not see often its use in english texts.

Well, the others can correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are mixing up the words evidence and obvious. Obvious is not a proof, evidence is or can be. Maybe it is just a translation issue from your language to english. I have the same issue from my language. In french, we also have the word evidence but, it does not means the same thing as the same word in english. In french, we use evidence the same way the anglos use the word obvious. We have the word preuve, which is translated in english with proof. But the difference in french vs english is, when you want to prove something. The anglos use the word evidence to prove something. While the french would rather say present a piece in proof of something. So in the english language, you can make a proof by presenting evidence(s). I do not know about your language so, it's up to you to figure it out.

I think Canada will just look the same, with alot more debts.

Basically, what you are saying is, the only way to stop israel for colonizing the most occupied small piece of land in the world, is to start a war against Israel and make them lose. I am pretty this is what is acknowledge in several islamic minds.

The only logical answer to such thing is, let's erase those israeli bastards from the surface of earth. Lucky for them, you are too insignificant to be taken seriously. The americans will always protect Israel but, not at all cost. The message is very clear. They have enough of this shitty attitude. Israel has to stop. The americans were ok with Israel taking the irremediable presence advantage in Jérusalem but, not a total ethnic cleansing like they are slowly doing. Winning a war does not grant you the right to eject people off the land they are living for several generations. It's not a board game, it's real life. I think the israel leaders are very stupid. If there are no more palestinians in israel and they clean up the place. It will just increase the will of Israel haters to just nuke the place. They won't even have to sacrifice any of their own. It's about time that Israel starts to learn to get along and that is also the opinion of alot of israelians. Except the extremists, as usual.

Yes. Of course. But my point is, usually, the islamic terrorists are targetting innocent people that can be anyone to create a feeling of terror. This time the target was an ambassador. Not anyone can be an ambassador. Maybe I am wrong, but I think this homicide is more planned than it looks like.

The US are very mad at this Russia-Turkiye friendship. But this assassination in that context is not the way they use to proceed. It would be to easy for their enemies to track down a link with them. I do not think USA has something to do, even if it could have serve their interests, but it is not impossible. The first place I would look at, is a religious group that seek more power either in Syria or in Turkey. Killing a Russian ambassador in Turkey can be a good way to destabilize Erdogan. The kind of very simple reasonning extremists might think but, I doubt Putin will fall for it. The attempt might also have the goal to make Russia look vulnerable but, they did not target the population like the terrorists use to do. The target is political and it is clear that the Russian authority is targetted more than its population. Not exactly the same kind of terror the extremists are doing recently. I remain open on all possibilities as for who sponsored that crime. USA, Islamists, Turkey opposition, even Russia. To me, it looks like one sacrificed its Bishop to take a Pawn on a chess game.

I did not but, I see they solve the mystery in 2015. He was closer to native americans than any others. Native americans come from Asia. We know that now. The first whites that arrived here were the Vikings but, they did not last long. However, I do not know why you talk about that. It is irrelevent. That is like buying child porn and saying it is not you that force the kid to do that. When you buy it, you consent. Even if the whites also did take the blacks from Africa, you are right, most of the time, they were just buying them from others that capture them. Blacks were enslaving blacks, then selling them to the whites. So the owners of the boats shipping them in NA were all jews? Look, whether what you say is 10% or 50% or 100% true, it is irrelevant. The whites in north america bought them. They are in the front line of the blame. You can accuse the jews as well if you want. As long as you do not deny the facts. Remember, you were saying that only the whites were investing money and efforts. Also, do not forget that the whites have kick most of the natives out of their land. Hey boy. Does that conspiracy is giving you nightmares? Destroying the caucasian race... nothing less. How many races do you define? You count only 9% whites? Who do you exclude and include? The change needs alot of time. Minimum is 1000 years and can take alot more than that. In what category do you put the people having parents from two groups? A Negroid mother with a Mongoloid father. How do you classify that? If the little girl of that union, later gets a child with a Caucasoid father, what happen then? Even if we could classify the humans into that 3 race categories, those are just made up of a point in time. Those 3 are all coming from the same root. We are not even talking about another branch of humanoids like the Neanderthals who desapeared few thousands years ago. When you have a child, half of your genes are mixed up with the one coming from his mother. Whether she is caucasian or negroid, it does not change anything.

It was racist in those days as well. The difference is that, in those days, racism was something accepted by the majority. Natives discover Canada first, not the whites. The white founded what Canada is today but, with the use of natives and black slaves as well. The very same whites that kidnap blacks in their homeland in Africa to bring them here in north america for slavery. It is very inappropriate that you say they did not put money, time and efforts. The whites preserving their race? No races are endangered on this planet of 7 billions of people. The diversity is a good thing and that includes the existence of the white skin. Which is not better or worst than any others. There are no will or plan to make desapear the white race. You fear something that is mathematically impossible to happen unless there is a law that forbids white people to have children with white people. You are not racist because you want to preserve the white skin attributes, you are racist because you think your race is endangered by the others. It is ironic because if you take a look at your ancestors, you will find that all humans on this planet find their origins in Africa. You do not even understand why your skin is white. It's the evolution. The skin adapts to its environment. The race is just a concept based on the skin characteristics. The whites are 30% of the total population, more than a billion. Alot of animal species are more endangered than that.

I can't get enough of this new artist, Coeur de Pirate. Most of her songs are in french, but here is one in english: Carry On. This one is a very good performance: Crier tout bas. My all time favorite, Peter Gabriel, In Your Eyes.

Do you deny that she was victim of racism and segregation?

Well... 2016 years ago, a powerless man has been crucified on a wooden cross and yet, we ended up with one of the most wide spread religion on earth based on that event. Isolated, it is just a man that died in a very fatalist way. but when we look at the big picture, the conclusion is very different. I think you under estimate it. Should the event at the movie theatre never occured, would have it not change anything at all? It is possible, yes. I have no analysis on the impact in my hands, directly or indirectly. I am pretty sure it changed something. Maybe influence others on the long run. One thing for sure, it was not a forgotten event. She got a pardon, the first one in Canadian history, according to what I have read so far. She was treated almost like a criminal and now she is considered a hero. I can't agree with your "no impact" conclusion. If you have said that she had a small impact but, not big enough to be compared to many others who deserve that honour, I would say fair enough. But you insist on saying that it's a non impact story and I do not think you are objective when you say that. You do know that all the racists of that time all thought that refusing her the access of the theatre and the trial for fiscal evasion was not such a big deal. Right?

Besides that she has taken the place of John A. McDonald for the edition of 2018's $10 bank note. Do you understand the importance of her move and impact in our history? You have the right to think it is not as much important as Johnny, but you do not give it the appropriate honour. Imagine, you are a black woman and this happens to you: