huh

I think you're probably deranged, and in need of some help, and in a nutshell an example of whats wrong with a sector of our society, but aside from that, you need a mask for 'asphalt dust'? Sure you do, anyway, how about you peaceful protestors not damage property while protesting, but like the leader of the quebec student union who admitted on camera that he see's nothing wrong with smashing windows, because windows aren't people, you don't seem to understand that this law is in response to the acts of those people you desperately support. In other words, if people like yourself spent more time trying to better yourself and less time in the streets blaming the world for your decidedly first world problems while smashing private property (im sure those two words-private property, are words you really hate) this bill would never have been introduced. It's your fault, your actions have made our society less free. Fyi, don't wear a mask and you won't be an "illegal rioter in a mask". Im sorry, i can't help it, asphalt dust? My god, can you imagine how dusty downtown to must be during rush hour? I bet you can't see two feet in front of your bumper, o what? cars don't produce the dust? ahahahaahh LOLOLOL.

So somehow because the pool is visible its ok that it kills far, far more people in accidents that firearms do? There are many regulations concerning the safe handling and storage of firearms, independent of the registry, for some people that isn't enough, they make bad decisions, people can and on occasion do get hurt. Then again the exact same thing can be said about pools, however it seems that since many more people are hurt accidentally around pools, and we clearly care about saving the people and not just the object of their demise (that was sarcasm btw, we know you don't actually care about the people) perhaps a pool registry or an outright banning of pools is in order. If it only saves one life..its bound to save many more than that, and many more than any firearms regulation could. There are plenty of articles on the internet, like this one, http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ to reinforce the point. Its only a 100 fold difference, in Canada its probably even higher. So i am left with a few possibilities, you and those with the same beliefs are either incredibly stupid, or you for some reason hate people with pools and want them and their children to be killed, or you're so indoctrinated into whatever bullshit ideology you have come to believe in that reality is just a sideshow for you, leading us back to the first option. SO why don't you crusaders focus your 'efforts' where they might have a greater impact, on the many subjects where more people could be helped, senseless deaths prevented, hey, here's an idea, drive to a random bar once a week and offer to drive someone home, you will probably do a lot more good then the registry ever did. But again it is clear that you and the rest don't give a shit about people, you care about guns, they are a symbol of something that you don't like, and we all know if the left doesn't like something it must be eradicated, people of tolerance who are only tolerant of their own beliefs. It's deaths you care about right? Won't you something help the swimming public? Only you can prevent back yard drownings! Nah you're busy focusing on 1/1ooth of the deaths because you have a hard-on for guns. Better yet, live your life and keep your busy body nose to your own business.

You really shouldn't throw stones in that glass house you live in.

So, if i could say prove that o, swimming pools are by far more dangerous than firearms, would that change your mind about firearms or would you decide to register pools? No, you would have to be reasonable and intelligent to begin with, and if that was the case you wouldn't believe the things you do about firearms. Self assured in your own ignorance, so pathetic, but then the world is full of stupid people.

Who gets to decide who is rich and who decides how much tax is enough and then what it gets spent on. You would think the people who have money, those people who somehow earned it (yes i know, earned is relative) would be allowed to have input on how much is enough and what it is spent on. I fully support taxation, I don't believe that a middle class person is 'rich', but for a guy living on the street, they are relatively 'rich', so does the person with no money, or those on welfare, or those working at Mcdonalds get to decide who is rich and how much of that persons money they deserve? Insane as it is, some people think so, but then those people are basically communists whether they know it, believe it, or admit to it or not, and the poor are just a soap box for them to stand on.

It doesnt matter, climate change is a religion now, it's a belief system, the same people who hate religion are climate believers now, and they see nothing wrong with it. Im a believer in climate change, not a believer in climate fanaticism, better start planning for the next ice age people, you think a few degrees warmer is bad? Not that it has even happened yet. Oh hey, its been getting better in the arctic recently, and quite good this year, but i know its thin, cuz you know colder temps cant make thicker ice, just more thin ice. Oh its the albedo, all that open water, absorbing more heat from the sun, whereas the ice would reflect it. You would almost think it would have to be extra cold in order to overcome the momentum of that effect in order to make more ice, and oh look, it has been, maybe that trend will continue, maybe not. But the certainty of global warming, which has been supplanted by 'climate change' in order to account for the vagaries of climate variation and prediction, because the certainty simply doesn't exist.

If it was solely Quebec's money I would be all for it, but it isn't, and maybe the culture they have has something to do with that. Those students don't deserve to have money handed to them via subsidy that came from a have province that charges their own students two or three times as much. They just don't.

Ah, i dont think the fetus/baby is delivered in the usual sense before it is 'aborted', so maybe not. It is impossible to talk about this in Canada, it is a watershed issue for the left, not so much for women, but the far left, I dont lose any sleep over it, but some basic restriction in law would seem to be reasonable, but the left is about as reasonable on this issue as the religious antiabortionists are, so in lieu of not meeting in the middle I would prefer that women have complete freedom to make the choice.

Well, first off the far left, mostly NDP supporters would say the world wars were fought by imperialist and colonial powers, and in fact claim that for example remembrance day is a celebration of imperialism and that everyone who fought and died in those wars did so for nothing, or at least not for what they thought they were fighting for. Ive read that on babble many, many times. Thats up for debate, but it is true that the NDP has at least some of its support from people like that, communists too, whatever, the conservatives no doubt have some support from the very far right. So while i wouldn't say Harper is wrong i was disappointed to here him say that, he did look really off, not himself for whatever reason, maybe the pressure is getting to him, idk. Whatever the reason he had better up his game, Mulcair is no slouch.

Mulclair seems really competent, at least in parliamentary debate, i just dont like the party he stands for. At this point i dont much like any of them.

Can someone tell me why we have been transporting oil by tanker along the eastern seaboard and into the bay of fundy for many decades but for some reason the coast of BC is untouchable. The bay of fundy was very nearly named one of the new wonders of the world, yet no one is protesting the oil shipments there. Some of you are using that oil right now.

Ok, start with your own biases and we'll join in.

It isnt enough for straight people to accept gay people, you have to celebrate them, or your a bigot.

Yes we all need to be more informed by the lobby on your side.. I dont care how you feel about this, if we believed in evolution and natural selection we would provide these people no support and either let them find their own way or perish, but no, you want to help them even if they wont help themselves. Ok, i am not totally against that, we do have some responsibility as a society to help those less fortunate, but tell me, who decides when we have done enough? Who decides when the rich have paid enough taxes, or that the welfare recipients get enough money, or that single mom has had too many children? Do you think you should decide? Is it your ideology that should reign, everyone needs to be 'helped' no one is truly responsible for themselves? Is there some point at which we say no? Because for some of you there doesn't seem to be a line, how much tax should the rich pay..seventy five percent? I have zero doubt that at least a few here would be fine with that. At some point what you want is full blown socialism or communism. We should help people, but not at the expense of consequences for bad and often repeatedly bad decisions. Why do you think you get to draw that lines? Some of these realities are so obvious that i honestly believe most of your aren't all that intelligent.