?Impact

Ahhh, no. The alt right stood out because of the evidence. You know the real facts and not the alternative facts.

Thank you Lord for your proclamation, we are not worthy.

Daddy made a fortune by finding loopholes to swindle the government of money intended to build housing for returning soldiers from World War II.

Grandpa was a draft dodger as well.

311,000 Brits want Trump to come over for a State visit 1,850,000 Brits don't For those of you having trouble with math, that is 6:1

Just some of the real things that have been done in Haiti since the 2010 earthquake: 23,500 families (more than 70,000 people) displaced by the 2010 earthquake have been resettled in better housing. 150 Haitian National Police managerial staff members have been trained (since 2013). 212,000 children under the age of 5 and 72,000 pregnant women have had access to free health care since 2012. More than one million girls and boys have had access to basic education since 2010. More than 440,000 Haitians receive financial services (including access to credit) as members of a network of 47 credit unions, stimulating the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. More than 27,700 Haitian agri-entrepreneurs received $28 million in agricultural credits from 2011 to 2015, the effect of which was to stimulate agricultural production in Haiti. Six police stations have been rebuilt since 2010. Emergency food assistance was provided to 4.3 million Haitians. Safe drinking water was provided to 1.7 million people. More than 300,000 families were provided with emergency shelter materials. More than 700,000 children received education and protection. Medical care services were provided to 90 percent of displaced individuals in Port-au-Prince. 1.9 million children and youth received vaccinations.

It seems that Mr. Fake News get's his fake news from Fox News.

Yes, this is getting close to the border. Standing on the other side of the street and shouting names is one thing, but getting in someones face and saying go back to the jungle is different. One is expressing a vile opinion, and they should be denounced. The other is causing fear, and they should be charged.

The horse is already out of the barn.

So substance takes a second seat to presentation? b.t.w., There was a lot I liked about Manning, as well as a lot I didn't concerning substance. On presentation however he had low marks.

We do have anti-zionism which is more political than religious or people oriented. I guess in some ways there is a similarity with Islamophobia, because there are fears about the expansion of Islam. One of the reasons I don't call myself an Atheist is because I am not militant about the destruction of religion, which it does seem there are some prominent individuals who label themselves Atheists are. Labels are such confusing stuff, perhaps I am a Tolerantist.

So what do you think are the most important leadership qualities that Clark lacked? Apply them to the Liberal party and tell us who should be leader.

I think there is enough evidence that Jesus and Muhammed the men existed, it is what they proclaimed to be that is in question. There are many modern day people who make divine claims, we know they exist, we can go and see them or get reports on television, etc. about them. Their existence is not in doubt, it is just the claims they make that are.

While nothing is black and white, there is a difference between being offended and being fearful. Many people are abusing their freedom of speech to cause fear in others. An angry mob shouting to families going to out to pray with slogans like "Go home Paki", "Take that rag off your head", and far worse is intended to intimidate and cause fear. While they don't cross the line to physical assault, which happens often enough as well, they do go much further than legitimate protest. I have no problem with someone burning an American flag in protest, as long as it is done safely; I have a problem with burning someone in effigy. To put that in Canadian context, I would say go ahead and burn a copy of the Rebel but don't dress a doll up as Ezra Levant and burn it. It is legitimate to point out all the vile things that Ezra does, and denounce them, but don't publish his home address and encourage people to go there and interfere in his family life.

I see a difference between speech that offends, and direct incitement of violence. I am sure there are a lot of Muslims who are deeply offended when I say that all religions are vile, including Islam. I think someone saying Muslims must die however is hate speech and not acceptable. The same applies to protesting Israeli occupation which is legitimate, and chanting death to Israelis which is not. Free speech should not be something we hide behind in order to practice outright hate, that does not support free speech but instead degrades it.

My guess at ranked ballots is that the highly polarizing candidates will not get second shot. O'Leary can be polarizing, but some of the others might be more so. There are several safe second choices, like Chong that might be able to get through between their first and second choices. O'Leary's advantage is he will be one of the leaders in the first choice, and might get enough second choice to take the win. I think it will come down to how many safe second choices there are, which means they will need to differentiate themselves.

Canada allows you to take foreign citizenship without relinquishing your Canadian citizenship, and does not force you to renounce foreign citizenship when becoming a Canadian. Subtle, but important distinction.

Looking into the Al Quads rally, it does seem like there were several participants like Nadia Shoufani who were clearly giving "alternative facts". While I don't consider calling for the liberation of Palestine and denouncing occupation by Israel to be antisemitic, expressing support for those who use violence to achieve those goals is not acceptable. What it really comes down to is the difference between shared goals and shared tactics.

As I suggested earlier, anti-Muslimism would be against the people. Anti-Islamism would be comparable to anti-Judaism, and that is not the term that is used. Antisemitism is against the people, and yes I understand the imprecision in the term.

Actually the ban was against anti-abortion candidates.

Sounds like a rally against Israel occupation. Yes, I am sure there were antisemitic participants as well, but then the counter JDL is far from innocent itself. I see that rally took place at Queens park, and not some random synagogue. From the outside there appears to be very little in common between these two events. The Montreal Imam does sound like something that needs investigation.

Wouldn't that be anti-muslimist, and they practice anti-muslimism? No, I'm not into making up new words, and that is why I have stuck with Islamophobe which is also a made up word. As betsy points out there might be other connotations to Islamophobe than the generally understood ones so there might be a valid reason to stay away from the term.

Why not reads the post? As I have said before, what we really need is a revision capability. The latest revision should always be shown, but make it easy to see earlier revisions. That way we always have a record, but the author still has the ability to make corrections, etc.

It certainly should be investigated, it does seem to cross the line. Trying to intimidate people who are going about their daily lives is a criminal act.