blackbird

In choosing to have your own moral code determined by yourself and yourself alone, you make a fatal error. The proof is in the history of mankind right up to this moment. The prisons of the world are full of people who did exactly what you are saying and look where it got them. The mental institution's forensic units are full of people who also used your principle of being their own moral code. The history of the world had countless barbaric and cruel dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, who did things by their own moral code. So in all honesty what makes you think your moral code would be that much better, even if you didn't commit the same crimes as they did? Even what appeared to be harmless old women have sometimes gone astray as the woman known as the black widow. She married men and then killed them. Then there is the home care worker in Ontario who is alleged to have killed a number of elderly residents in old folks homes. Mankind is a history of bad actors, criminals, child molesters, rapists, thieves, serial killers, war criminals, and murderers. All thought their own morality was the best thing there was. Then there are the small time criminals who do crooked things such as ripping off people they deal with, maybe evading paying income taxes, maybe always driving above the speed limit, or telling little "white" lies. Maybe they never get in trouble with the law and manage to avoid getting caught, but they are still pushing the bounds where they think they can get away with it. They have their own moral code too. When God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, there was no sin. But Adam and Eve rebelled against God and received the judgment of God on them and their descendants (us). It means we are all born with a sinful nature and are born in a state of rebellion against God. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Before Adam and Eve sinned, they had eternal life and could have lived forever, but once they sinned, it meant they would die. The same will happen to us. We may still be saved by the new birth or by being born again. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 BUT you might say why should I believe the Bible? It is written by men? This is the first great error. The Bible is divinely inspired. "Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day." Jeremiah 36:2 King James Bible (1611) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy ch3 vs16 KJV 1611 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter ch1 vs21 Kings James Bible (authorized version 1611) Way back in time, before the creation of the universe, there was a very beautiful angel called Lucifer in heaven with God. There were innumerable angels. Now Lucifer looked at himself and decided he was so beautiful and thought he could be god. So Lucifer decided to rebel against almighty God. He took a third of the angels with him. They were kicked out of heaven and he received a new name as Satan. Lucifer is that fallen angel. This account is in old testament although I can't remember where offhand. Satan has been given certain limited power for a period of time on earth. But God has a plan and Satan and his followers will be punished with everlasting destruction at a certain point in time. Those who spend their life following Satan and refuse to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will end up in the Lake of Fire with him. Those who believe the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ will be saved and live forever in heaven. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" book of Acts

As I said, I don't think you understand the process. First nations had ample input with thousands of submissions, hundreds of hearings across B.C. I don't know what more could have been done. Some bands simply won't participate and will continue to protest. That's how it always will be. You can't please everyone.

You don't seem to understand. The judge did not say there could be no pipeliine period. He doesn't have the power to permanently stop a pipeline being just a judge. He put it on hold because of lack of consultation he said. The government could have continued the consulation process, but because Trudeau came into power, Trudeau closed it down. But the judge did not abolish the project. You misunderstand how it works.

Harper did not "seek approval". Harper and the federal government officially approved the pipeline project. Later a court held it up saying there was not enough consultation with native bands. That is disputable. The NEB's Joint Review Panel held hearings all along the route for a year or two, received thousands of written submissions, and held countless hearings. You obviously don't know the facts. The courts did not ban the project. They only put it on hold. The Trudeau government could have tried to hold more hearings and discussions with native bands to try to satisfy the courts complaint. Many bands already agreed with the pipeline. But instead Trudeau was against the pipeline in the first place and so completely rejected the project.

Harper and his cabinet approved the Northern Gateway Pipeline, but this was later rejected after the 2015 election by Trudeau. Harper approved the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama rejected it.

I just explained to you how people get addicted. Why do you keep making silly comments? It is known how people become addicted. People make there own choices. You can't tie them up or put them in a cell so they won't take drugs. How old are you?

No you don't want to hear. I just answered your question. People get addicted by hanging around with and living in a culture of other people who do drugs or sell drugs. Hard drugs is extremely addictive. Once a person tries one of them, they want more and can't live without it.

Maybe some similarities. What we need is a Trump. Trump is not a Republican either. But he has made some good promises, some being expensive. For example, cutting corporate taxes from 35 to 15%. This will have a big effect on Canada because Trudeau is not likely to care while some corporations might move to the U.S. where taxes will be lower. He plans to build the U.S. military up and build the wall is expensive but will create a lot of jobs in the U.S. Both good moves. Let's see how it goes. Left leaning governments in Canada are ruining this country in a number of ways. Putting us into deficit, increasing taxes with the carbon pricing. Trying to create a nanny state where government will provide everything but will have to raise taxes considerably to do it. Also legalizing pot will cost Canadians a lot. New electronic impairment marijuana testers for police across the country will cost possibly $1500 each plus training all police forces. This will cost tens of millions of dollars or more. Then replacing them in a few years when newer technology comes out. There's no end to it. Creating a bureaucracy to administer the pot industry, federal and provincial will mean an army of civil servants on the taxpayer dole. More impaired drivers, more court time, more lawyer costs. Legal aid.. judges. more costs. Plus pot is said to cause some anxiety problems with some people. Could be more mental health expenses for government. The thing is most Canadians do not take marijuana but will be forced to pay for all the policing, etc. that could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Trump has already started to make a dent by arresting and deporting drug dealers, gang members and criminals who are not documented citizens. The wall may make a big dent in it too. You've got to get rid of the criminals do slow it down. Obama did little or nothing about it and sanctuary cities is a big problem. Liberals fighting for criminals to stay.

I don't think there is a lack of knowing why or how people become addicted. That has been going on probably for thousands of years. The problem is convincing them to want to quit. And to prevent addiction, get people to not hang around with addicts or places where it is used. There is a school of thought that thinks marijuana is a gateway drug too. Some people who sell marijuana or use it may have other drugs and might be offering them to try out.

Figuring out why people get addicted is going to do what? They get addicted because somewhere along the line they decided to try hard drugs. It doesn't take much to become hooked. A person has to want to get treated and get off it. Otherwise how can they be helped?

Documentaries show there are people coming across the border illegally every day and hundreds of millions of dollars in cocaine coming in from South America every day destined for the American market. Many drug users are dying every day. So you can draw your own conclusions about the proposed wall.

I'm not a lawyer but I think they go by precedent a lot. If Trudeau made much of getting off because his father was a Prime Minister, maybe they could argue their clients should receive the same treatment, especially since Trudeau told about it in public. Equal treatment for everyone? Equality under the law??

And lawyers will be arguing in court that their clients should also get off since the PM got off.

Former Prime Minister Mulroney gave an very enlightening interview about NAFTA on CBC today. Mulroney was the PM when the original NAFTA agreement was signed back around 1990. It will probably be broadcast on the news this evening and maybe on the weekend. It is a very re-assuring interview. He doesn't believe there is much to be worried about. He says there are millions of jobs in the U.S. dependent on it and he thinks once the facts are known, things will settle down. He said the federal government has a very good team and will present the facts when the time comes.

Was glad Trudeau called him a couple times on the phone in the last couple days and seemed to reach some kind of agreement to keep NAFTA for now and negotiate changes. Agreements work best when leaders talk personally. It is such a complex thing and apparently thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. depend on NAFTA as well as the same in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions, of trade is done every day.

The problem is tree farming is on privately owned land in the U.S. and in Canada tree farming (or logging) is done on crown land. I suppose a lumber company in the U.S. must pay more to land owners to log on private land, while in Canada logging companies pay the government so much for each cubic meter of logs taken off crown land and the logging company must restore the forest I believe. I'm not sure who pays for re-planting trees on logged off areas. The thing is it's not Canada's fault if we have lots of crown land and logging is more profitable in Canada. It is our natural resource and we don't have to give away our natural resources for a low price. It's just like any other natural resource Canada or any country has. I don't think the natural resources in Canada are an international resource any more than natural resources in the U.S. belong to other countries. Every country charges a fair price for it's resources or should be able to as far as I know. The U.S. is probably getting a good deal on Canadian lumber because they are the biggest buyer and close by. We are tired of this game of charging a 20% tariff and then having it ruled as illegitimate years later and then having to try to collect billions of dollars refund, some of which has not been paid back.

President Trump says NAFTA has been horrible for the U.S. I am not sure in what way he thinks that.

Various sources do confirm FGM is practiced mainly by Muslims in a geographic area in countries across north Africa. Wikipedia says in part: Quote Background[edit] FGM is found mostly within and adjacent to Muslim communities in Central-North Africa, but it is not required by Islam or practiced in most Muslim countries, and prevalence rates vary according to ethnicity, not religion.[15] However, Muslim views are claimed[16][17][18] to have permitted, justified, even encouraged FGM, over human history. There is no reference to FGM in the Qur'an.[19] In other Islamic texts the practice is referred to as khafḍ (Arabic: خفض‎‎)[20] or khifaḍ (Arabic: خِفَض‎‎).[21]Khitan (Arabic: خِتان‎‎) usually refers to male circumcision, but in some regions or dialects also encompasses FGM. The less severe forms of FGM, particularly what the World Health Organization calls Type I (removal of the clitoral hood with either part of or the entire clitoris), is known as Sunna circumcision.[22] There is no consensus whether the hadiths support or forbid FGM.[23][24] Different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have expressed different views on FGM.[16][25][26] In addition to Sharia, the Ijtihad (sometimes spelled igtihad) have been one of the four sources of Muslim law through the centuries. Ijtihad include fatwas (opinions of Muslim religious scholars), which are often widely distributed, orally or in writing, in simple language, to the masses, and describe behavior that conforms with religious requirements. Fatwas are considered by most believers to be morally obligatory.[23][27] Fatwas in favor of FGM have been issued in many Islamic countries,[28][29][30] some fatwas forbid FGM,[31] and some ambivalent fatwas have also been issued that leave the choice to the parents.[32] Sunni view[edit] There are dichotomous differences of opinion among Sunni scholars in regards to female genital cutting.[33] These differences of opinion range from obligatory to acceptable. The Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be obligatory for both males and females, while the Hanafi and Maliki schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be Sunnah (preferred) for both males and females.[34] Historical religious views The historical religious view regarding the partial cutting of the clitoris, also known as Type One FGM, varies with the school of Islamic jurisprudence fiqh:[35] The Shafi'i school considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).[36] The Hanbali school considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[37] The Maliki school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.[37] The Hanafi school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).[37] There is some information about FGM being practices in some other religions but this is an extremely small percentage of the total 200 million women. From Wikipedia, in part: Quote Christianity[edit] The Christian Bible (New Testament) does not mention female circumcision (i.e. removal of clitoral hood ) or female genital mutilation (i.e. clitoridectomy and infibulation).[89][90] Christian authorities unanimously agree that FGM (i.e. clitoridectomy and infibulation) has no foundation in the religious texts of Christianity.[91] Some Christian women, in Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania, undergo a procedure of genital cutting; they wrongly believe it to be a religious requirement.[91] In Africa, missionaries have tried to discourage FGM (i.e. clitoridectomy and infibulation). However, in some instances, in order to retain converts from other religions, they have either ignored or condoned the continuation of these practices. When in the 1930s European Christians tried to make opposition to FGM a condition of church membership and a test of loyalty, they provoked a far-reaching campaign in colonial Kenya. Mary Nyangweso, a Kenyan researcher who studies "the interplay of religion, culture, and gender",[92] states, "Christianity, it is important to stress, does not advocate the total eradication of the Nandi female initiation rite. Rather it advocates the need to eradicate the practice of female circumcision that involves clitoridectomy and excision because it is physically unhealthy and does not conform to Christian teaching. The initiation rite can continue to be practised and the actual circumcision can be replaced by some other symbolic acts not harmful to women's bodies. This can be derived from the culture itself or Scripture that now forms part of the Nandi way of life."[93] Judaism[edit] The Jewish Bible (Old Testament) does not mention female circumcision (i.e. removal of clitoral hood ) or female genital mutilation (i.e. clitoridectomy and infibulation).[89][90] Female circumcision (i.e. removal of clitoral hood) and female genital mutilation (i.e. clitoridectomy and infibulation) is forbidden in Judaism.[94] Regardless of these views, in Ethiopia, there resides a Jewish minority group, often referred to as Falasha or Beta Israel, who practice the procedure of female genital cutting.[91] However, there is still a question to the validity of the Beta Israel's claim. "Non science scholars today excessively rely on the existing religious texts of the Beta Israel to analyze their Jewish heritage and distinctive traits that are not shared with the Abyssinian Christian society. Researches, however, suggest that the sum of authentic Jewish material within the religious texts of the group is small (Devens, 1995, p. ix). Rather, the texts are shown to contain significant borrowings from Christian sources. These conclusions are widely accepted by scholars as supporting evidence to the argument of the traditional theory that the Beta Israel people were originally non-Jewish (Quirin, 2010, p. 5-6)." jewry/[95] Other religions[edit] Animism Some animist groups in Africa practice female genital mutilation.[96] Their religious views on the subject are undocumented. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism Hinduism and Buddhism outright reject the procedure of female genital cutting.[97] It is completely absent from their traditions just as FGM is completely nonexistent in Confucianist traditions.[98] Unquote

Just watched an interview with the President of the American Home Builders Association (think it was called). His phone has been ringing of the hook. He is completely opposed to this tariff because it will have a negative effect on his members, home building companies that build 80% of U.S. homes. He says it will push the price up of the average U.S. home by about $3000. This will mean about 300,000 people will not be able to afford to purchase a home more than now. But his people will be meeting with political leaders in Washington to try to get them to see reason. This tariff helps small number of lumber companies in the U.S. at the expense of a much larger number of home building companies and others.

We been all through this ad infinitem. Leftists don't care because they are multicultural marxists and don't care about the damage they are doing to western civilization by bringing in people who are totally incompatible with our values and culture and have no intention of changing. Rather than stand up for our values and country, they sell themselves out for votes.

Because only a certain type of person does these things. Leftists want to put their heads in the sand and not acknowledge there are certain problems that come from a certain kind of person. By ignoring the problem Liberals and NDP get more votes from minorities.

We don't know how the police would handle a report so we can't assume that is how they would do it. There are neighbours reports of domestic abuse, child abuse or suspicion of child abuse that are reported to social services or police all the time. It has to handled some way. Is it better to ignore it? What would be your solution? We depend on citizens being observant and reporting anything suspicious that comes to their attention.

I read one of the cases where a railway fired an engineer who had been tested and found with cocaine in his system. An arbitrator ruled the railway had to reinstate the employee. The railway is fighting this in court saying forcing them to employ an engineer who was found taking cocaine puts the safety of everyone at risk. Apparently in Canada there is no requirement for railways to do random drug tests of employees. In the U.S. it is required to test. Not having a mandatory random testing program for employees in critical jobs puts the public at risk. This is incredible.

Don't see how it could be abused. Unless a victim is willing to verify it and possibly have a medical examination by a doctor to verify it, there is nothing government or police can do about it. So it can't be abused. Another phony liberal/NDP issue.