blackbird

So you have read the long article in 10 seconds? Amazing!

How do I move it to United States Politics? Just sent a request to the Administrator to ask it to be moved.

It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#W2APqBS2eyLASAui.99 http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/

I think the doctor was annoyed with the patient because he refused to quit smoking. I'm not sure what happened finally. I doubt if most doctors are like that.

I agree. Don't know why someone would give you a thumbs down. I gave you a thumbs up to cancel it out.

Private religious schools are only partially funded by government. The reason is because people pay tax dollars for education. If they send their kids to private schools, the government provides some funding and the parents must still pay a monthly tuition for each child. In one school I know of, I think it was $400 per child per month. That is a lot of money. Some provinces might be different where the Catholic church has some kind of historic agreement with the government to provide catholic schools funded by the provincial government. But this is an exception and there is no such agreement for other religions. I'm not sure why you don't agree with eliminating religion from government. Not sure what you mean by government. Government cannot favour one religion over another. Can you see the unfairness of government favouring one religion over another? The best way they can be seen to be fair is not allow any religion in public schools or public universities. If people want religion in schools, they are still free to send their kids to a private school which has their religion. They can also go to their church after school. They shouldn't ask the school to provide a place for worship. Taxpayers are not paying for that.

Yes, I agree that is exactly the situation. But, we must stop dwelling on the past and the blame game. If native leaders are going to focus on the past and looking for someone or something to blame, they will never be able to help their people. It is easy to say these things, but people have to change the present paradigm, which is dependency. I read a book a few years ago called "Dances with Dependency" out of poverty through self-reliance --- by Calvin Helin. He is a native, who finished school and went to university, became a lawyer, an author, and public speaker. He is a kind of motivational speaker who understand the problem of dependency. His books and messages are widely acclaimed. Try Googling him. I believe he has the answer. But the will has to be there.

If people started being denied medical care because they are overweight, drink liquor, don't exercise enough, or because of a whole string of other sins, there would be very few people who would qualify for medical care. I don't think the medical system can discriminate against anybody based on anythiing. Everybody has a right to receive medical care. The problem is the long waiting list for some things, the high cost of certain drugs, and the overcrowded emergency rooms, and overcrowded hospitals. As far as quality of medicare care, Canada is way down the list of countries providing good medical care. Costs are escalating and care is declining in some ways. Governments are failing to act to rectify the problems with the health care system. All they can come up with is a 20% tax on sugar, while the health care system deteriorates. Patient blaming by the elites. One of the weaknesses of democracy. Nobody is accountable because there are so many issues at election time.

There are some doctors who will not give you heart surgery if you are a smoker. I overheard a doctor tell a smoking patient that on the heart ward. That saves a lot of money too.

An organization is demanding the federal government put a 20% tax on drinks with sugar in them. This would include all beverages such as pop, juices, cold drinks, coffee, and teas. Would you be in favour of such a tax? The idea is to force Canadians to reduce consumption of drinks with sugar in them and thereby reduce obesity and health problems. Some opponents say this will not reduce consumption. Is this a misguided attempt at social engineering? Is it an assault on personal freedom? They can calculate it will bring in over 10 billion dollars of tax revenue for the government. What do you think? Good idea or bad?

The problem is if Trudeau brings in a law, a judge can sentence anyone to a jail term and/or fine. Unless you have a lot of money to appeal and challenge it, there is not much you can do except go to jail. Also, there is no telling which way an appeal court will rule these days and you can't count on the Supreme Court to stand up for freedom of speech. When there is a law forbidding any speech against Islam and their side has lawyers arguing it is "Islamophobia" and against the law, you might have a hard time proving you have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't matter that much what the Charter says if the law says something different and the judges give more weight to the law because of political correctness and powerful lobbies and lawyers on Trudeau's side.

Heard that Trudeau is bringing M103 back to Parliament March 21 for second reading instead of waiting until April. Trying to rush it through?

So how do you explain the videos that were taken of the planes flying into the twin towers? How do you explain all the evidence that the planes were hijacked and passengers reported on their cell phones that they were hijacked? How do you explain the plane that flew into the pentagon? How do you explain the plane that crashed into the ground after some passengers fought the hijackers and a woman passenger phoned a relative on her cell phone and told what was happening? How do you explain the authorities have identified who each hijacker was and traced their lives up to the day of the attack? How do you explain the fact some took pilot training to learn how to fly the passenger jets in a basic way?

This was not a strong win for Rutte's party. They actually went from 41 seat to 31 seats, a loss of ten seats. So they hold 31 in a 150 seat parliament, or about 20% of the seats. Wilders party, the PVV, increased from about 12 to 19 seats, a gain of about 7 seats. Two other parties hold 19 seats each as well. The clash with Turkey's president appears to have helped Rutte in the last days of the election, as he was able to rebuff the Turkish president. Was this orchestrated by Turkey to affect the election? Who knows. The next interesting election will be in France in the near future. Marine Le Penne, right of centre, has a lot of support. She wishes to restrict immigration but is not talking as tough as Wilders was. She may have a better chance.

I agree with Steven Blaney. He was a cabinet minister in the Harper government and knows a lot about how the system works. I'm not sure how anybody can argue that Canada should keep someone here when they have been convicted of terrorism and have dual citizenship. It only makes sense to strip them of their Canadian citizenship and send them to the other country they hold citizenship in, instead of spending a hundred thousand dollars a year to keep them in a Canadian prison for 25 years and then having to put them under surveilance at great expense. I think Canada has deported people for far less reason, for instance if they lied on their immigration application.

First of all, there are already over a million Muslims in Canada, many of who would be Canadian citizens. I presume you're not talking about them. Secondly, for those crossing the border lately, we have an immigration system that works by laws already in place. The migrants coming across the border must go through the existing immigration system process. They can't be just shipped out. They have to go through the refugee determining process and can appeal the outcome. It could a year or more for each one. But that system can only be changed by changing the law.

Watch the TV news tonight or tomorrow for the results of the election in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders is the leader of the Freedom Party and is expected to make political gains today in the election.

People that vandalize Mosques and insult Muslims on the bus or street are doing a disservice to the rest of us. They are giving them more of an excuse for M103. A lot of people can't see the difference between insulting Muslims and a respectful dialog on the religion. Those are the kind of people we need to watch out for. They lump everyone into the same lot. I think that is what the Libs and NDP are doing. Just realized I am getting away from the subject of Brexit.

You're getting away from the topic which is Brexit. Nobody said anything should be done with people in Canada. Just treat them respectfully like everyone else.

Muslims on a person friendship basis would be great friends I am sure. However, that is not the point. You can still be friends of Muslims and not agree with Islam or want your country to become an Islamic republic or some kind. I don't think the individual Muslims you know even think in terms of taking over a country. The issue is not personal friendships. It is what the Quran teaches and what some Imams preach. You can't judge the what is going on in some countries in Europe or judge Islam just from you good Muslim friendships. I wouldn't mind having some Muslim friends but don't think there are any around here.

I live in western Canada (B.C.) and am aware that Quebec and Ontario have most of the votes. They have the largest population so that is how the system works. So the answer is yes, I go along with the principle of one man/woman, one vote. We in the west might not be happy with the results always. But at least we get to participate in a democratic system. We live with the outcome, whether it be good of bad. Scotland should live with the results. I think the separatist party is using the Brexit result to try to get a referendum to separate, which should be no great surprise.

It might be divisive but democracy is the system we have. There is no better system.

If they don't get their way, they are going to pick up their marbles and leave. waaaaa The majority has spoken.

The UK Parliament has approved proceeding with Brexit. That was the main hurdle. I don't think anything is going to stop Brexit now. Scotland cannot hold another referendum on separation unless the UK parliament approves and the British PM has said no to another referendum.

Answer is quite simple. There were only two candidates to choose from. In the minds of many christians Hillary Clinton was not a good option. She supports policies that are basically anti christian. Trump may not be a perfect candidate but he did make promises that resonate with many christian beliefs far more than the Democrats. One example is Hillary is a strong supporter of abortion which has killed something like eight million unborn babies in the last number of years. Trump said he is pro life and opposes abortion. He promised to appoint a pro life judge to the supreme court and that is what he is doing. The general anti christian stance of the Obama administration has turned many to the only other choice there is, that is, Trump in hopes that America's christian values will receive more respect. If you're not a christian and don't believe in these values, then you will more than likely prefer Hillary or some other democrat. Christians do not see Trump is the "devil". That is far fetched hate speech.