?Impact

I disagree, the low water mark for Senators is very low. At least we have the suitable low water mark for the judges, and they are also held accountable through the appeals process.

I thought Kenny was going to move to provincial politics, a "unite the right" attempt in Alberta.

The F-117A Stealth Fighter was shot down 18 years ago by a Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora. The F-117A has a similar radar profile as F-35, the F-22 radar profile is smaller. The SR-71 managed to never be shot down, but it was engaged during combat over 800 times. It was not its stealth characteristics that help it, but speed and altitude.

So you were fine with the unqualified Nadon, and Towes? This is ask #3, what other than skin colour is the problem with Trudeau's appointments? Who was passed over that is better suited?

Racists are people too. Bigots have feelings. Trolls just need a hug.

Yet Ontario elected the Wynne Liberals in 2014 when the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan was a key plank of their campaign, and yes they were very clear all along that they would prefer a CPP solution if it could be worked out.

It is interesting to see the money raised so far for the 2016 elections. The Republican party has about a 10% advantage over the Democrats in Congress. In the Presidential campaign however the situation is dramatically different. Outside groups (SuperPAC) supporting Clinton have raised about 20 times (yes TWENTY) the money compared to Trump, and the campaign committees have raised about 3 times more for Clinton than for Trump. While this looks like a huge advantage for Clinton, the wild card will be where all the money from the also-rans goes. I don't know how much has already been spent. The combined total for Republicans give them 360% advantage in SuperPACs, offset with a 15% disadvantage in campaign funds, yielding a total of 50% advantage. Overall it adds up to $1.3 billion for the race and still several months to go.

Of all the100's of judicial appointments made by Stephen Harper, the only ones I remember that the 'left' had problems with were Marc Nadon because he was unqualified for the position (confirmed by the Supreme Court judgement on the matter), and Vic Toews. Now suddenly we have a dozen of Trudeau appointments that the 'right' has problems with because they are not white enough. Again I ask, other than the colour of their skin list the problems with any one of these judges and who was overlooked because they were better.

The Ontario Liberals never wanted to create a separate version of the CPP, they were forced into that corner when Harper gave them the finger.

Other that skin colour, does anyone have a single issue why one of these judges is wrong and someone passed over is right?

There has been a lot of debate over the years about all ancient writings, and that is a good thing. I wouldn't suggest taking any summary from any side with a point to prove is the best alternative. When someone states conclusively that the item is valid/invalid then they probably have a predetermined conclusion they want you to accept. I have no better example than betsy above who snuck in with her God-breathed unity.

The world population at the time was .05% what it is today, and the literacy rate was 1% of that today. Combined that makes the potential tabloid audience 0.0005%. That explains in part why there are limited written accounts from the time period. Gossip however would still have existed, just that it would be mostly verbal. We know how accurate the tabloids are today, there is not much to suggest they would have been more accurate 2000 years ago. What were the journalistic standards of the time? Did Mark like to sensationalize like Ezra? From most accounts, Mark appears to be the closest to the actual events, some speculate that he might have even been an eyewitness to the cruxifixction but there is no evidence to support that. Matthew and Luke are another level (or more) removed, and John is several beyond that. While Peter is written in the first person, it is presumed to be written around the time of John or later (is there a term for a ghost writer of an autobiography without any connection to the principal). The non-Christian accounts tend to either try and find explanations for the alleged miracles (e.g. a solar eclipse for the darkness after crucification), or mock the events like some of the accounts in the Talmud. There are many references to Jesus (Yeshu) in the Talmud, but the jest of the offensive story is he was an evil sorcerer that led Jews astray and was tried and stoned and hanged for his crimes. He was originally a Jew, but after some incident with the innkeepers wife he was punished and left the true religion for idol worship. It is interesting to draw parallels between the Roman Catholic church in later years as it gained power and the Church of Scientology today. The Roman Catholic church had a massive censorship campaign to remove the offensive passages from the Talmud. While they didn't try and wipe out the Jewish religion, they would destroy the offending paragraphs in copies of the Talmud. While far more practical in the days before Gutenberg, it proved impossible to destroy all copies and those that survived have been found and redistributed in modern time. Where the modern Church of Scientology has very little power on a global scale, they do wield power over their members and have forbidden them from looking for information on Scientology on the Internet or other non-approved sources. China and Iran with their massive state budgets and firewalls are unsuccessful in their censorship campaigns so the Church of Scientology doesn't have a prayer, yet still they have about 10 million members (about 3% of the world population throughout the rise of the Catholic Church).

Yes, if this goes through the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan will not go ahead. The main changes are, a 1% increase in premiums which will increase the benefits from 25% to 33% of earnings and the ceiling (on earnings) goes from $55k to $83k which puts the maximum benefit at $27.5k or twice what it is currently.

You are right that public sector unions generally favour Democrats, it is only the number that your off by. The largest 2 contributors to the Democrats over the past 2 years have been the American Federation of State/Country/Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers who contributed about a million dollars each to Democrats. The National Education Association gave $624k to Democrats, and $160k to Republicans. The International Association of Firefighters gave $700k to Democrats, and $205k to Republicans. The National Association of Letter Carriers gave $525k to Democrats and $50k to Republicans. No other union gave over a half million dollars to either party. Added all together, all union donations to all parties are less than half the contribution of the NRA to the Republicans. I think however we are getting a bit removed from the topic of mass shootings. Perhaps you should open a new topic or find and existing one on party financing.

Yes, nationalism has often been used by those seeking power to get popular support for themselves. In the aftermath, we learn that they lied to support their agenda. It is a good thing that there are no new candidates seeking power that are wrapping themselves in the flag of nationalism.

I'm not sure where you get that from. Tiberius Caesar, the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus is only mentioned 10 times in the literature from the period up to A.D. 150. Jesus is mentioned in 43 different sources, 10 of which are non-Christian. The non-Christian sources are: Thallus (as quoted by Julius Africanus), Josephus, Celsus, Lucian, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, Plegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud. Perhaps you are referring to the lack of first-person eyewitness accounts, but that is not surprising as the literacy rate at the time was less than 1%. A lot may have to do with the company Jesus kept, he didn't socialize with the upper class where the literate were but walked among the poor. We didn't have CBC at the time, sent out on assignment to cover the hippy in sandals breaking bread with the peasants. It is interesting to note that Thallus predates even the earliest Christian gospel of Mark by many years.

Yup, that is essentially the point here; to demonstrate that the Bible could not be the work of God because of the many inconsistencies. Instead of debating if Jesus existed, I am trying to show that he could be no different than Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. Nobody denies the existence of either of these men, and I wasn't around 2000 years ago so who am I to deny the existence of Jesus. It is the embellishment of the story, both from him directly and from those who wrote his biography. Even if he was the son of God, why should we accept the new Testament as fact and not fiction based on some fact like a modern day movie. If someone wants to accept a God based on faith, then fine, just don't try and sell us on 'evidence' that is clearly full of holes. I have no problem accepting that someone named Jesus, born of Mary and Joseph 2000 years ago, walked the middle east in his sandals and spread a message of love. I don't however accept any supernatural capability, regardless if he originated the story or it was simply an embellishment of his followers. I see no concrete evidence that he did or did not live. Certainly some of the characteristics attributed to him help fulfil older prophecies, but that doesn't mean he was not a person rather than just not a person with supernatural abilities. Many of those that say he did not exist point to other evidences like his similarities to Krishna, Horus, Mithras, Dionysus except their stories end up having just as many holes in them as those of the believers.

I agree there is anti-immigration sentiment across the political spectrum, but that is very different from anti-immigrant sentiment. There are two driving factors to support immigration: to provide new opportunities for the immigrants (compassion), and to grow our economy (greed). While I don't subscribe to a simplistic left/right political spectrum, if you want to look at in those terms then realize that the different driving factors don't carry the same weight on both sides. Growing the economy for example might be looked on benefitting all, or it might be seen as a way to acquire cheap labour to benefit a few. Likewise the fear is not the same across the board either.

If they were written in the first person, like the gospel of Peter, then I would see the point of that context. They are not however, they are written as historical accounts. Only when they are quoting (eg. John 6:42 you gave above) would the context of the time be necessary. I am making the assumption that Mark did not become Peter's disciple until after the resurrection so even the telling of events to Mark would be in the context after Jesus' death, otherwise that opens up a whole new can of worms. This also brings up the entire issue of the credibility of the books of the new Testament. Are they the word of God, or are they accounts of disciples of disciples (in the case of Mark) or even further removed? How do we hold credible the work of men? What makes the book of John (and the epistles of John and book of Revelation) any more credible than the Book of Moses from the Mormons? Their authorship appears to be far removed from God, Jesus, and even his direct apostles. Is it not more likely that the [emerging] Church commissioned much of these works to follow their narrative? As I pointed out before, we have clear evidence this was done in the case of Mark and those discrepancies still appear in many main stream Christian Bibles. Why do we think the new Church(s) of 2000 years ago would behave any differently than those of today. How can we discredit the Church of Scientology and at the same time support the Christian Church(s)?

Say what? The gospels were not written prior to Jesus' death, but several decades after. Mark is not an eyewitness, but a disciple of Peter. Yes, as you point out other Gospel writers mention Joseph as the father. John as you point out, and Matthew if not by name but by occupation. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. In one case you say 'son of Mary' to infer that there is no relationship to Joseph yet now you are saying there is. Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Other than all the begetting, Matthew 1 is only 8 short verses (what we would call a paragraph in modern English) that fulfil the misunderstood prophecy. I am not claiming Matthew made up Joseph, just had to explain why Joseph accepted Jesus. ... Yes, the Gospels focus on certain themes, unless of course the Church wants to rewrite them like they did to Mark. ... I'll give you that the wording in Mark of Jesus as son of Mary is indeed puzzling. Of course why does he not say son of Mary and the Holy Ghost? If the 'male' linage was so important at the time, then why was it omitted?

Deluded into thinking that money has intrinsic value. Money is an artificial creation - period.

Yes, the term almah is used 8 times in the old testament. Not one of those time however does it mean virgin and not young woman. They are very distinct old words. Yes a young woman can be a virgin, but not necessarily. It is like the terms mother and woman. We generally don't say the woman took the boy when we mean the mother took her son because we are missing significant context. I am well aware what Matthew said, I am asking did he say those thing to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah as he understood it? Why did Mark and John overlook this obviously significant issue? Perhaps we need an updated version of Mark to match the prophecies, it is not like that was not done in the past. It is well known that the original versions of Mark were significantly different than many modern versions like the King James Bible. This is just like the church editors decision to reject the gospel of Peter, because they were trying to fit their narrative and not hand down ancient texts.

There is a lot of faith in immaculate conception, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Not all the gospels however talk about this issue, that seems like a major oversight. It does however appear in both Luke and Matthew. Let's focus on Matthew. Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Here Matthew is referring to the prophet Isaiah Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. That seems fairly clear cut, a fulfilment of a prophecy. The above translation is from the King James Version, which was derived from the Greek translation in 3 B.C. by rabbis and Hebrew scholars. If we go back to the original Hebrew texts however the word used is almah which doesn't mean virgin but young woman. Could it be that Matthew was influenced by reading the prophecies of Isaiah, and to some extent embellished his stories? Could Luke be similarly influenced, it would be fair to assume he also read the ancient books. Neither Mark nor John mention a virgin birth, a strange oversight.

I accept TimG's definition of Islamist as being different from Islam. Note however that he did not use the term 'radical' which is what I was pointing out. He is stating that Islamists are implicitly radical, but different from Islam. I agree the same kind of issue exists between Israeli, Zionist, and Jew. We have a problem when a Presidential candidate however equates them by wanting to ban Muslim travel, and the low intelligence followers just lap that up because they don't make the distinction. I was pointing that out with my sarcasm the other day saying that conservatives should be banned from traveling to Canada because of Thomas Mair. That is the exact same equivalence that Donald Trump made. I am not following your 'reasoning' however, I am asking for clear distinction.