Rue

With today's Charter of Rights interestingly written by the same Trudeau who invoked the War Measures Act, for martial law to be invoked it would have to withstand a Charter Challege to court based on whether the martial law was warranted and so justified under S.1. You know how slow the SCC can be. It could take months. In the meantime what would happen? Would it hold until the review? Could someone ask for an old administrative writ procedure to prohibit until the ruling (prohibition, mandamus)? Who knows. I do know Prof. Hogg who wrote the charter with Trudeau told me they never intended it to be used as widely as the SCC has applied it. I think though as things stand, you are dead on based on the fact there is no more War Measures Act and nothing equivalent to it.

Just call me Jack and I haven't been high in years.

Well I am being ignored right now on a thread where I responded to a post but was told my response was a hijack of the thread, but the post I responded to was not which is illogical. I was given no warning just a 3 day ban with the usual sign or you don't come back on. I have asked three times for an explanation and no response. To say the moderator is illogical or hard to follow especially when he won't provide explanations is an understatement.

It is sometimes impossible to understand when Charles decides to "moderate". The grounds he uses can be contradictory or confusing and the tool used is to announce a ban and say you have to agree to it to get back on. Then if you ask for an explanation you don't get one. I want everyone to know I was banned for supposedly hijacking a thread by responding directly to a post on a thread that was allowed. So how could my direct response be hijacking if the post I responded to was not? That makes no logical sense. When I asked for an explanation I got no response. I am the first to understand rules and why they are enforced, i.e., inflammatory words. Sometimes however, some posters are allowed to write things and then when challenged complain to the moderator and with due respect the moderator may be allowing this to distort their judgement on subsequent rulings. Complainers should not influence moderators in future issues simply because they complain a lot. I have sent three questions in asking for the above with no explanation. Please can anyone tell me how responding directly to the words in a post that is allowed in a thread, hijacks the thread but the post being responded to, does not? Is that even possible? Thank you. Thread Hijacker p.s. an explanation of what is off topic would be nice p.s.s. do moderators understand that if they allow an off topic post, and someone responds to the off topic post, they would think because the first post was allowed, responding to it would not be off topic-I do note sometimes there will be a warning to stay on topic, sometimes there is no warning and the entire thread is suddenly closed I can get that

The first statement is another classic example of your reference to ALL Jews in a negative manner based on an unsubstantiated subjective assumption based on hating Jews. Next your second paragraph has been answered many times. Pretending it hasn't is stupid. Each time I have answered your question is not a question, its a statement that you believe Hitler and others have good reason to hate Jews. To ask me what others think shows just how ridiculous you are. How would I know what others think. I could speculate and do speculate that anyone who thinks and states things about Jews as you do is a hateful bigot, but I do not know. I can't read the minds of such people you invent. You really need to think before you respond just once. Next who ist"that ilk". Go on explain. As for a chance to make you look bad, I do not ask for any, you just can; help though but make them possible.

Of course its irrelevant to you. That was not the point. The point was the criteria you use is not necessarily used by me and many others so your pronouncement that any opinion but yours is relevant is irrelevant.

Lol, the first part is sort of correct except one thing you missed. If the elected assembly does not like their decision as to an existing law, they can pass a new one. They have to get around Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the past and will continue to do so, the exception being Charter of Rights interpretations. At this point they have carte blanche on those. In regards to the second, I am sure many of the SCC members would find your definition of them being left wing etc. laughable. Judge John Sopinka and many other Judges were not exactly leftists. I think the analogy of the SCC as the CBC is funny though. I am sure you felt that way about Rosie Abella or Laskin but come on some of these other guys no some maybe. Given I am a third rate, I can assure you I did not influence any of them. Trust me on that.

..and you know this because... Me I have to rely on sources such as: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/North-Korea/wb_political_stability/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Russia/wb_political_stability/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/China/wb_political_stability/ These 3 countries don't produce refugees but its not by any means as a result of stability.

They know enough to know it mutated from dirty hands processing meat and its easy to know how it spreads, sneezing, coughing, dirty hands touching and leaving the germ on where it touches. Given the crowded over-concentrated populations, the lack of space literally between human bodies and the lack of hand washing are ideal conditions to spread it. The virus itself can not be cured. What has to happen is the manufacturing of a small dose of the virus into your body with the right mix, to then allow your body to fight it and come up with its own system to then defeat the virus. So as we speak they are probably working on a vaccine. In the interim, people die but less from this virus than the flu and the people who do die, die because they get run down then contract a lung infection which kills them because their bodies can't fight the infection. This happens with people with compromised immunity systems from being aged, having diabetes, cancer, heart disease, lupus, other such illnesses that make your immunities non existent or weak. A typically healthy person will if given sufficient hydration and vitamins and alcohol rubs or other measures to contain the body's heat level from rising too high will fight off the infection on its own. It sounds worse than it is. In close quarters you bet it spreads. But will it kill you? Probably not unless you are vulnerable. That said China or any nation processing meat with unsanitary conditions presents the ideal pathway to spread viruses. Once upon a time the kosher and halal diets for example enforced strict rules handling meat which is why you do not see this in the Middle East as you do in China. You do not see it in India also with huge condensed populations due to Hinduism-vegetarianism and Islam limiting the handling of meat. You do see it in China, Latin America-Mexico and some countries in Asia but not for example like in Singapore or Japan with strict health conditions or Indonesia or Philippines where halal rules still prevail in large parts. The sad thing is we know why China serves as a pathogen for these viruses but politically you can't burn down China.

Its impossible not to connect this phenomena to government practices, and the wide spread food practices in China when handling meat not to mention the inherent nature of crowded face to face condensed populations. The problem is this is going to never end.

People up North in Canada do NOT have access to balanced diet foods. That is a fact. The epidemic rates of diabetes, heart-disease and other nutrition related diseases in native Canadian communities has clearly been linked to lack of access to fresh vegetables and fruit. That is not by choice. In inner cities, lack of nutritional education is caused primarily by lack of education NOT lack of access. Socio-economic and educational status are directly related to this issue. Ethnicity does too. Some ethnic diets are low in bad cholesterol or avoid processed foods two of the largest factors in obesity as well as lack of exercise. In segments of Canadian society where food is accessible, education and lack of exercise become the two major factors of obesity and as Argus points out what goes on in the home. This is all documented by the many medical charities and Health Canada with objective criteria. Today we have the phenomena of both parents working and they come home to kids parked in front of the internet stuffing their faces on junk food. Children today are brought up stuffing their face on junk food and sitting in front of computers and not exercising and when their parents come home tired, of course its easier to throw something in the micro wave then cook it fresh adding to the problem. Obesity is a lifestyle related illness, but it can be caused by inter-connected issues to poverty, limited access to food, lack of education, and /or pre-existing physical or mental illnesses. I can tell you that home economics courses teaching healthy diets, regular exercise at school, and health sciences explaining nutrition as well, all help deal with the issue. That is directly based on studies. You can find them easily on the internet or go to the Heart And Stroke Fund or Diabetes Canada or Health Canada or ANY hospital in Canada. Regards, someone who eats too much junk but whose head is fat for other reasons

That has been proven in many studies. Its the behavior of the parents children imitate not what parents say.

You see I knew you would come around Betsy. Actually anytime there is any epidemic of any kind people will think the above. Remember when they said AIDS escaped from a CIA lab? They already have the bio-technology to kill us all. My friend has a weird job. She sells viruses to labs. That's her job. She works at one company that makes the viruses and then they sell them. Man I hope she does not get in a car accident. Chemists say some are harmful until you mix things but she said some are dangerous just by themselves. You just never know B. I suspect its something more obvious, poor hygiene practices especially when handling meat and the crowded lack of physical distance reality of living in China. The two are a lethal combo to make and pass viruses.

I agree. It is why you can not take most people seriously( and probably not me when it comes to processing meat W). Although I would not eat hot dogs from the USA unless they are Levitt's. I appreciate Often Wrong's exasperation. People really do believe what they read yes.

He's referring to powers of privilege not terms in office. As well one was a war time President and Trump is not. Huge differences

Why I think it is worrisome for Trump is that when he got elected the civilian intelligence establishment considered Obama their "boy". The CIA, FBI, Homeland Security all became political ideology extensions of a foreign policy that Americans instinctually rejected. Americans did not buy into Obama on foreign policy and his close affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and placing its supporters in all these above listed offices to sanitize the word "terrorist" out of any reference to Muslims and on an on. Trump was elected as a backlash to a policy that saw a warrior state under Obama apologize for being a warrior state. Trump played on that no different then most populists use jingoism to get elected. He pulled a Mussolini. He went into the crowds, found out what angered them, then fed back the anger saying he would bash the source of the anger. This is exactly how Mussolini got elected. He sent people into the crowds to find out what they hated then appealed that hatred by posing himself was a great warrior come to slew their beasts. Trump used his media to do that. Trump had a marketing empire that exists by feeling the pulse of his audience to know what to sell them. Reapplying that to politics from real estate and selling ties, suits, meat, was not to big a stretch. The thing though is and I argue, is that he had to have the military intelligence network that despised Obama's civilian intelligence network behind him to win. He had the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all its myriad of intelligence connections and therefore military industrial complex network support. Hilary did not. In fact her disasterous business network courted the very businesses the military industrial network considered the enemy, specifically China and outside contractors. Now Trump seems to have turned on his military supporters. He has openly fired and insulted many and his behaviour in Europe during several memorials had to have had a very disturbing ripple effect of insult to them. He does things no military person could look the other way on. Now mind you Trump is not as stupid as he acts. After he sucked up to Erdogan he quickly reversed himself. His approval of the take out of the Iranian chief of military had to have improved his standing again but his alliances with Putin, Kim Jung and now his mixed signals with China and Erdogan, who the hell knows what that means to the military grown tired of his instability. I think they may sit the next election out and not tell their network of industrial contractors to make sure to vote for him. I also do not think the Evangelical Christian block of voters a very powerful source for putting a Republican in office is happy with him. He's also actually burned his bridge with a lot of Republican Senators who feel they could survive with him thrown out of office having two years to distance themselves from him and push another leader before their elections. So this is not so much Trump's election to win as it is lose. At this point he has no one really running against him. What he has shown is in the vacuum of an alternative, he is capable of doing anything, literally. I still think at this time Trump is gonna get re-elected unless he "dies" and choking on a chicken bone is always something to think about if you go too far. I would watch Romney who is not done yet and the Dems for a late outsider coming in. It just smells to me like the Dems are holding off on someone to slip in later with a staged messiah has come dance performance. The way the party is split and setup to make late entry a possibility in its convention , I just smell that as a possibility.

True. That's the reality of it.

In regards to your first paragraph let me start with this pictorial aid: In specific regard to your statement: "He despises me because I dare to question or challenge anything that has to do with Judaism or Israel." To clarify In fact have contempt for your words not because you question anything to do with Judaism or Israel but because you use the pretext of "questioning" Judaism and Israel to express hateful stereotypes of both as evidenced by your continuous comments including this one in your latest response, "He won't even answer me when I only asked him as to why does he think that Jews are so despised these days or why did Hitler appear to despise them also. Simple questions, don't you think?" When you have asked such questions in previous posts I responded to them directly as I do now and stated they presuppose there are good reasons to hate Jews and given in past responses when you raised these questions you did so in the context of first stating there are good reasons to hate Jews and Hitler and others have/had good reason to hate Jews I responded by saying your questions were rhetorical, i.e., statements. You don't care for an answer-you are in fact stating yet again you have good reason to hate Jews. The key is your use of the word "hate" in your questions. You asked: "Can you say for sure that those Palestinian camps do exist for the sole purpose of fomenting hatred towards Jews? " What I can say is it is public record is that the Arab league stated it would imprison Palestinians in camps after its armies were unable to prevent an Israeli state in 1949 and hold them in those camps as a reminder to the world that until they undo the state of Israel they would keep Palestinians hostages in those camps. That is an historic fact just as it is historic fact that It was the Arab League who imprisoned Palestinians and it was and remains Arab League nations that refused and refuse to take in any Palestinians as citizens even though they started the war that displaced them and they were th ones to tell them to leave the area until they could exterminate all the Jews. Still to this day with the exception of one country Jordan, which declared itself a Jewish free Palestinian state and offered immediate citizenship to Palestinians no Arab League country takes in Palestinians as citizens while those Palestinian Muslims who chose to stay in Israel do not wisht o leave or give up their citizenship and have access to the same hospitals, government services and legal rights as any non Mulsim Israei which is the exact opposite of what has happened to those Jews still living in Muslim states. Your comment, "Those camps exist because the Palestinians have always been there." is nonsensical. The camps never existed until they were created by the Arab League. In fact the Gaza strip was created as an open air prisoner by Nasser who ridiculed Palestinians and said they would never be allowed in Egypt. As for " always being there", Jewish, Christian and Muslim people have been in the Arabian peninsula for thousands of years. Historically Christians and Muslims proceeded Jews. People descended from people of the Arabian peninsula were called Arabs, short for Arabian Peninsula people and so they could have been of any religion. The descendants of these people today are most likely to be Beduins or those descended from the semites which would be Jews or some people today who could be Christian or Muslim. In fact most Christian and Muslims identifying themselves as Palestinian today are not-they are descended from Muslims or Christians who moved to the West Bank or Gaza when the British in the 20's and after no different than Jews who moved to Palestine in that era. The term Palestine is a Greek term and no it was never always there it only became called that as a geographic zone by Greeks and then Romans when they coined the phrase as a geographic term not as a national or state term. It referred to a geographic area nothing else. It only became used to describe a people without a country by Arafat after the black Sabbath uprising and Arafat failed to kill King Hussein and seize Jordan and was exiled to Tunisia. Until then Arafat, the Arab League and all Palestinian nationalists ridiculed the concept of a Palestinian being a national identity. So it is in fact a recent political term/ As for criticizing Israeli state policies as to settlements on the West bank or engaging in policies that may exasperate relations between Palestinians and Israelis, no one is more of a critical of that, then ironically JEWISH Israelis and their press. The fact someone challenges Israeli state policies is not the issue-using that as a platform or pretext to then go on to justify hating all Israelis for existing as Israelis and all Jews for existing as Jews is what is challenged. You asked this question: "My own government allows and tolerates hate rallies against my nationalist people. We are not allowed to express our opinions and points of view in public. If Jews are targets today, then I will ask you the same question then? Why is this so? " First off as long as you keep using ambiguous terms like "nationalist people" to hide your true identity by deliberately removing the word white you simply show how you hide your agenda and make a mockery of your attempts to pose as a victrim of political discrimination. Next, and as you are well aware, if a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a person with pale or dark skin in Canada wants to march and express their opinions, subject to municipal by-laws requiring permits for traffic control and fire and emergency safety they are allowed as this is a guaranteed freedom under the Charter of Rights. However if anyone in Canada wishes to march and express terminology that defines identified people as inferior or superior based on skin colour or religion as your "nationalist people" have done, they can depending on the context of their words, cross the line and engage in hate speech which is a criminal offence. Don't pretend you don't know the difference or why neo Nazis can't express hatred. In regards to Trump being pro-Israel it doesn't mean as a Jew or a Zionist I agree with all his policies and won't criticize him. He also in the last election welcomed the support of some very vile white supremacist organizations and many of his words to this day appeal to them. Anyone not just Jews including Republicans worry about that: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/who-does-trumps-white-identity-politics-reach/595189/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-sees-political-advantage-in-a-divisive-appeal-to-working-class-white-voters/2019/07/26/39234f00-aef1-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html https://www.newsweek.com/trump-racism-calculated-impulsive-1452337 Finally as for your stating the Democrats have always been "somewhat anti-Israel" this is a meaningless statement. t Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Bill Clinton to name a few from the past as well as many today are oppen supporters of Israel. In fact many US elected representatives Republican and Democrat are and also openly challenge Israeli foreign policies and certain trade policies and support a second Palestinian state on the West Bank. That doesn't make them anti Israel, it just means they are looking out for American interests. That is their mandate.

No it simply means I clearly don't evaluate good by whatever keeps Trump in power.

Seriously, yah I get that. Its the cornerstone of any democracy. However now you should know why I like Mitt Romney. That is my idea of a Republican. Its too bad people write him off so quickly. He was that perfect blend of business sense but too cool to get caught up in rudeness or private lifestyle issues. He always kept his own strict religious beliefs out of his public life. Too bad so many people wrote him off for being a Mormon. I think he can serve as a valuable conscience for the Republicans, McConnell just is not a man offering Republicans a reason other than Trump to vote Republican. If the Dems were smart they would recruit Romney. If the Dems melt down I wish he'd run as a third party candidate and give both sides an option. Romney's expert as a Republican in Massachusetts as Democratic a state as it can get speaks loudly to his abilities to unify people. Then again I actually said the same thing about Arnold Schwraznegger as a Republican. Maybe a bit too left for you not for me. I go for low deficits and small government but civil liberty on private issues. Truthfully economic issues are what bugs me about Trump. Its the other crap. I think his toughness with Iran was on the mark but I do not understand his softness on Putin and Jung. I also think he was and is planning a trade deal with China in spite of all his posing. I noticed today that nutcase in the Philippines signaled he wants out of a military alliance with Trump. We shall see how that plays out.

There are people on both sides taken themselves too seriously.

Well screw him. Politics should all be done tongue n cheek. Anyone who really gets their nose out of joint is an idiot. Now will you come get yer boys Wes and Shady and that redneck BC. They are at my door with pitchforks and burning torches screaming at me to come out and play. Hey seriously no one could have predicted the last 3 years and no one can predict the next 6 months or so. With Trump literally anything could happen an as well, no one saw the corona virus issue impacting on the Chinese economy as it now appears to be doing. I will also say this, when the decision was taken to take out Iran's head of military, something clearly Obama would not have done it. That move appears to have sent a strong stabilizing message although of course time will tell.Most I always argue do not under-estimate a US leader needing to look like a military leader at all times. The US is a state predicated on military traditions and history and attached to a warrior mentality. A President who plays that, wins. If you are perceived as weak, like Carter was, because any kind of military action failed like it did with Carter, out you go. Obama's decision to take out Ben Laden was done to make Hilary look tough to counter the fiasco in Libya. Trump being elected was a backlash to Obama foreign policies that made the US as a world power look impotent and weak. However Trump as had friction with his military since elected over Putin, Erdogan and former military he hired and fired including Friday. Its his military intelligence network that was his biggest ally countering the civilian intelligence agencies Obama created within the FBI, Homeland Security and CIA. I think Trump may have pissed off the support he had from the US military network who may now see any civilian other than Trump easier to deal with. I don't think the trip of Pence to the Pope was a coincidence. Someone signaled Trump up high he's expendable if he keeps acting crazy and that was what that trip was about, to remind him of a back up plan. I think some leaders can really start to believe their own hype and in the US you do that, you can easily die in a car accident, of natural causes, choking on a bone, getting shot by a lone gyn man, etc. I also note even Trumps Secret Service was all changed with a story of financial bribery and corruption but when you remove someone's body guards and replace them, that's not a good sign if you are Trump. That may also have been a warning to him. Who knows. Yah I know...I may sound a tad conspiracy nut but I just don't think a guy like him can do all the mad things he does without behind the scenes players protecting him. Who they are we will never know and when he finally goes too far, no one knows.

On a more serious note and all kidding aside, in regards to economic policies, and purely economic policies, any President inherits markets and conditions beyond their control and then is surrounded by a network of agencies and bureaucracies that engage in disjointed, fragmented creation and implementation of economic policies which may or may not have the effects they intend to. You can only try implement them into the market place, but then their actual application and subsequent transformation into planned new approaches is never what it was intended to be. The very nature of trade and market places distorts directives particularly by those within the markets creating counter measures to avoid it using loopholes. It is naïve to think any leader of any country can control his or her economy. Even the dictator in China has this monolith Communist Party apparatus to deal with on any policy change. So without being partisan I would say any US President faces challenges with the economy and as much as each President tries to sound like they are different they are not. The fact is Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr., Obama and now Trump are NOT any different when it comes to using government spending to try inject fuel into the economy thereby creating huge deficits. Those deficits are what is at the root of all the economic challenges the coming generations will be stuck with due to our present day politicians thinking about now not the future. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/amid-strong-outlook-for-us-economy-risks-abound.htm

Lol. If it aint Fox it aint news...wait something is cutting in on my transmission..... Glorious Leader The Annointed One Donald Trump the First, The Only, The Divine One has fired two more traitors and sent their entrails to a processing plant for transformation to sausages...here supervising this glorious operation is glorious comrade Kimmy Jong Un: In my administration every opponent ends up on your plate. MMMMM good.

You make that sound like a porno movie.