?Impact

So they did the exact opposite? See my update while you were typing, Harper increase the ratio of Asians and Mulsims compared to white from 3.8 to 5.1. He didn't want more whites to suddenly appear, he wanted a significant increase in the browns.

Then why did the Conservatives bring in 1,662,380 (2006-2014, sorry 2015 numbers not available yet) from Africa, the middle east and Asia and the pacific compared to only 388,434 from Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States? That is well over 4:1 ratio. They also brought in another 237,849 from South America. They had plenty of time to change the balance, how does you vote getting conspiracy theory work? I just looked over time, and the Conservatives did indeed change the balance. The above ratio was 3.8 when they took office and 5.1 in 2014. It seems the Conservatives are the ones that want more and more Muslims and Asians.

No, I don't approve of illegal acts. Just because there are people out there that commit them against someone doesn't mean I automatically accept the person who they were committed against.

“[Hillary Clinton] is a great woman, a smart woman, a nice person, and an effective politician. I think her history is far from being over, I think she is going to go down at a minimum as a great senator. I think she is a great wife to a president. And I think Bill Clinton was a great president. You know, you look at the country then, The economy was doing great. Look at what happened during the Clinton years. I mean we had no war, the economy was doing great, everybody was happy.” -- Donald Trump - 2008 “nasty woman” -- Donald Trump - 2016 “the eyes ... stamina ... Benghazi ... emails” == Betsy - 2016

Agreed. While I think Clinton appeared more "Presidential" and Trump still a little childish, I think the expectations of him were so low that he may actually gain a bit from this debate because it wasn't the disaster for him that the others were.

Fact checkers have already came out on the statement Clinton made about Trump saying Japan should get its own nuclear weapons. He called Hilary a liar, but as it turns out (drum roll please), Trump is the big liar. Here is what he said in an interview last spring with none other than tonights debate moderator Chris Wallace Trump: So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea. Wallace: With nukes? Trump: Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes

More benefit? For who? The supermarket owners who import food from South America? Those out of work farmers should be grateful?

Just her token Mackerel Snapper.

How so? Just because I can't relate to self mutilation. I also can't relate to 'body art', but I don't consider someone with a tattoo to be mentally ill.

What is economic growth? If it is just dollars moving around, then inflation does a good job of that. If it is widgets produced, then yes productivity helps but you need customers for those widgets. Canada is getting more and more lousy at producing widgets, regardless of how many immigrants we bring in.

I'm bored being a man, I think I will have radical surgery just for fun. Nope, I can't relate to that.

So far not one of the emails came from her private email server, but I guess facts are irrelevant when you are on a roll.

I was listening to CFRA last night on the drive back through Ottawa, and I think it was on Brian Lilly's show they were responding with that exact commentary. What surprised me was that Lilly was making fun of those responses.

I do wish there were a sarcasm font to help those who are slow to get it.

No argument there, but not sure what relevance it has.

I know, I have been trying to separate the various issues. Prior knowledge of what she was in for Prior understand of what affect it would have on her Her choice in the matter Actual affect Responsibility of the state I think the last two are the most contentious. I think it is reasonable to assume she had little knowledge what she was getting into, or even what kind of effect it would have on her. I also don't think she had much choice in the matter. Its up to the experts (and the lying lawyers) to establish the actual affect, there is little we can do from our armchairs. Lets get to the responsibility of the state I agree that there is a slippery slope, but the question is where on that slope are we. Since we no longer have conscription, then soldiers have made a free choice to engage in dangerous activities where they may witness events that will affect them. Jury selection however is not voluntary, it is a civic duty. If a voluntary soldier can claim compensation for witnessing events then why can't a mandatory jury member?

Just like it is about Donald sexually assaulting women, engaging in sexual acts with a minor, trafficking drugs, etc.

A simple "no" might have worked, perhaps the "not at all" was viewed as too enthusiastic and not authentic. Perhaps it was your tie, or t-shirt with crude language, or the way you combed your hair. Counsel does not get to ask you many questions or the kinds of questions they do in the US so it is often just a gut feel for them. What were you told about the case, just the charges as I suggested above?

That would be a very useful feature. I never figured out how to do it, and I am sure I tried before the upgrade as well. That is why I generally do not use the quote, except for responses to board posts. In other instances I put the quote in italics and in normal font I put the citation. I also usually try to put a link to the original source as well.

Have you ever been to jury selection? I have not, but I believe you will only see the accused and hear the charges read. If you have no knowledge of the case from the media then you have very little idea what you are getting into. I also believe that any exemption you request must be made prior to the selection panel.