?Impact

Again an Islamophobic response. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion, yet you want to ban Islam and call it a cult. I suppose you think there is some 'cult' loophole in that section.

Let's see, the most common sign said "No to Islam". You don't think that qualifies as Islamophobic?

I thought those people were protesting for free speech, despite their Islamophobic signs and shouting that also had nothing to do with specific preaching by Imams. What will be the story next week, they were there protesting for better schools?

Trudeau's message is clear to those who care to listen. Canada remains an open country is that Canadians have confidence in our immigration system, the integrity of our borders, and the help we provide people who are seeking relief and a better life. We will continue to ensure that laws are enforced and followed and that we remain demonstrating the strength and integrity of our immigration system. We will be welcoming, but we need to make sure that it is done properly at the same time by all officials in Canada. Of course there are many people out there who are incapable of listening and have their own echo chamber to listen to and then pretend the alternative facts they portray are from Trudeau.

Possibly. No. Nobody is calling for silencing Islamophobes, but then you are not listening to what people are saying. Maybe we should call for mandatory reeducation camps for Conservatives, teach them how to listen and that critical thinking means more than repeating nonsense they get from their echo chamber.

Sorry, but not every progressive is calling for getting rid of the safe third country rule, not by a long shot. I suggest you actually listen to what is said, and not pick up on one item and apply it to everyone. Conservatives tend to have selective hearing, I mock but it is completely true.

MAD is a no-win scenario, so no they can't attack Russia or China. US does have some superior weapons, although Russia has many similar ones as well and China is not too far behind. There are many weapons the US does not share with it's allies like the F-22, nuclear attack submarines, even aircraft carriers which is more than just the boat but the who fleet and air power it contains. Each one of those aircraft carrier fleets (the US has 10) has more power than many countries, including many of the US allies. Yes, Hollywood does overplay the capabilities but don't underestimate them either. One of the most important strategic weapons is intelligence gathering and the US does have very advanced capabilities there. Certainly technology plays a big part, as does the human assets.

Why listen to real facts, when you have complete idiots like Steve Emerson with alternative facts to listen to.

Tales of violence committed by Muslims and refugees in Sweden often start as local crime stories that are then translated by sensationalistic UK tabloids, conservative outlets like Breitbart News, or the Russian state-funded broadcaster RT, before being further spread by fringe websites and anti-Muslim blogs in the US. Thank you betsy for continuing the tradition. Psssst, I have a good rumor for you to spread. No basis is reality, no fact checking, just pure alternative facts.

Yes, cracks in containment are always the biggest problems for nuclear power stations. We hear about the airborne leaks because they are closely monitored, but the groundwater leaks are the silent ones that are hard to find. In the case of Fukushima, we know there are significant groundwater leaks and over time it may turn out to be an even larger disaster than Chernobyl because of them. While the relative volumes of the atmosphere or ocean will dilute he radioactive isotopes to very low emission levels, the serious problem is the concentration of them in tissues up through the food chain.

You don't need to be a member of NATO for the US to sell arms to. Their true superior weapons are not even for sale to NATO, and much of what NATO nations can get are also available to the many countries the US considers Major non-NATO allies; a list started about 30 years ago and keeps growing. They recently added a new category between these non-NATO allies and NATO with the US—Israel Major Strategic Partner Act (note Israel was one of the first major non-NATO allies). Then of course there are many other groups and countries the US sells arms to, although they do them under the table. War, or the threat of war, is a very profitable business.

...or Wellington, Churchill, Windsor, etc. ...or if we were American we might think Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, or even Clinton but I believe that San José (San Jose, Saint Joseph) would have us beat by a long shot I don't think in China there would be a more common person to name things after because they tend to use subjects like 人民 (people), 文化 (culture), etc. when naming things rather than after a person. India I believe use a lot of mythological characters when naming things so they might be ahead in that regard, but they are not actual people.

If my eyes linger too long at a woman on the beach, is that rape?

Except of course the increased spending was $10 billion, and it is supposed to be an investment over a few years to build infrastructure to increase our future capabilities. You are confusing a predicted, and inflated, deficit with spending - two very different things. The best way to treat our soldiers is no more stupid missions like Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

From what I understand you can give up to 20 a day, I have never been anywhere near the limit so I am just basing that on previous comments. The other day someone gave me a bunch as well, but they were not for one post but several posts in the same thread. It appears that instead of evaluating the individual comments, people are just deciding to cheer on an individual contributor. Whatever, let the children play.

You are the one talking about the past 50 years, I am putting it in that context. guideline I am not saying don't spend more, I am saying we need to make that decision and not Trump. We need to decide if we are willing to increase our overall taxation by 7% (personal, corporate, sales, etc.) or not. We have to agree that we are going to borrow to meet that commitment, or we are going to cut services. We need to make those decisions, and I don't remember anybody talking about them in the 2015 election. Canadians have not had a say in what our commitments are. You seem intent on laying this on Trudeau, when it was Harper that supposedly made that commitment, and then dropped his spending dramatically and didn't suggest he would suddenly spend an additional $20 billion/year in 2015 campaign. Personally I think we should raise taxes and spend more on the military, but I don't make the decisions.

I occasionally give an up/down to a particularly good or stupid remark, but mostly I don't bother. I use them how they should be used, in connection with the post and not the person. Unfortunately the system doesn't tell us by post how many up/down but just a total so we have no idea if a lot of people agree/disagree only what the balance is. The system doesn't really provide any value that I can see, but so what let people have their fun.

I had heard something about a camera failing on a robot. Perhaps to a complete failure, but degraded capability. Not sure if it was the same robot, or happened at a different time.

I guess you missed the guideline part. There is no are, no commitment, it is a guideline. As I said before, all member countries, including the US, have substantially dropped their military spending in the wake of the 2008 recession. Perhaps all member countries need to arrive at a consensus, and not have Herr Trump dictate.

Why have we been freeloading? Based on what criteria? We have been a very significant contributor to NATO for years, and our spending was very close to the 2% target that NATO set in 2006, or 40 years after you are calling us freeloaders. Canada's NATO commitment is our contribution commitment, and we are making that. The 2% target is something that was set in 2006, but that is not about a commitment to being part of NATO. Show me this document you said our PM signed.

While we peaked at a high of 8% during the Korean war, it dropped over the next decade or more to just under 2% where it sat until the 90's (after end of cold war) and then dropped to about 1.2% where it sat until Harper went on a buying binge for a couple of years and brought it up to 1.4% and then dropped it to just under 1%. What is the proper spending, that is up to Canadians to decide, not Trump. I cannot find the 2006 commitment, we have a bunch of loud recent rhetoric from the US about it being a commitment but everything else seems to talk about target spending. Like the rest of the world, the US dropped spending on the military after the US caused global recession. Where is this actual "commitment", not the paraphrasing we are hearing now?

They are closely related emotions. The big difference is embarrassment relates to the others. I stole an extra slice of pie and felt shame, but then my mom caught me and I was embarrassed.

He really isn't a Democrat. For that matter Trump really isn't a Republican. What does that say about political parties?

I am not one of those people who picks and chooses only what a politician says that confirms my own prejudices.

Yes, should we adopt the Australian solution. I know Donald Trump is a big fan.