Rue

They panicked over Bolton. Now it appears they will block Bolton from testifying.

Get with the defense. His legal team is no longer denying he abused his power, they are now arguing its o.k. for him to abuse his powers because that is not a crime. https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-question-trump-claim-abuse-of-power-non-impeachable-2020-1

Honest Jacee I do not claim to speak for refugees, the process, just me. .and I openly admit my bias because I am the son of a refugee who was a badly needed doctor in her day and I would hope I more than paid back in taxes whatever it is say Argus feels the government spent on my mother although I suspect her own payment of taxes more than did that..its a complex issue. I know there are problems but I am one of those people that says work to resolve a problem don't just write off people. I say that because I do not want you to write me off just yet and I have numerous defects (brain, prostate, vision, hearing, to name a few). I am confident my diapers will prevent me from costing our society any unneeded expense due to the burden I might otherwise present in public.

..no actually I fully concede they create costs unless they are privately sponsored.....and I also have argued the current system's definition and process for determining who is a refugee is flawed. I just argue different approaches to deal with such problems and my cost analysis of a refugee is different than yours in terms of comparing immediate costs to long term revenue they may earn which may offset those costs. I always concede as well anything a government does wastes money. That's pretty much a given..

There is no such thing as interviewing a terrorist to find out if they are one and certainly the IDF does not rely on it and never has. What happened on this forum was a discussion about screening prospective immigrants to determine if they would have compatible Canadian values. It was pointed out in regards to that suggestion if you ask people questions in an interview about their "values": 1-trying to determine what questions to ask would soon break down as no one can agree what Canadian values are let alone what questions about such values would be relevant; 2-anyone can prep answers; 3-there is no accurate lie detection method-lie detection picks up when someone's heart beat suddenly changes when asked a question-this method assumes the person is lying if their heart rate goes up but heart rate can also go up if the person feels threatened by the questioner, has had too much coffee, is worried about his answer not pleasing the questioner, etc.; 4-just because someone believes in Canadian values or says they do won't necessarily make them go on to conform to these values; 5-psychometric testing can't definitely say you have any kind of Canadian values-they can at best point out repeating patterns of mannerisms, or behaviours, or repeating choices of references and then through questioning other than asking about Canadian values, come up with a general guideline as to the person's personality but even personality types are not absolute in that people have many personality traits from different groups, just some are more dominant and in fact each personality is as unique as a snowflake or fingerprint and personalities and predicating whether someone will then be a good Canadian can not happen, its not designed nor can it be designed to test for that. Now this new thread says we should interview terrorists or screen for them. Easy to say, but how....that is the question. When trying to look for terrorists of course asking them questions is NOT and could not be effective by itself. To detect whether someone is a terrorist, one has to use specific forensic techniques to detect certain kinds of behavioural tendencies and they are never absolutely reliable. These screening techniques constantly change because all counter-intelligence techniques have an expiry date-once they are used its only a matter of time until they are detected and therefore someone can then learn to manipulate them and so as a precaution must be expired before that familiarity might kick in. The kind of profiling Israel does or the British did in Northern Ireland or some other nations have done faced with terrorism was not simply sitting down with someone and saying hello Abdul do you hate Jews...do you hate Wasps...how do you feel about multiple wiives Abdul. A lot of people who puff themselves up in interviews are harmless and simply over-compensating to make up for the fact they are in fact jello. The phenomena of people turning themselves in to confess to murders they never did is a variation of this. Israeli counter intelligence works as a general rule where there is a connection between the person being observed and a terrorist organization or exremists through some past event or incident that was recorded. No Israeli expert can guarantee you they can catch a terrorist who has never had a connection to a terror organization or associated with known extremists and already been put on their radar so to speak. Counter intelligence is about building up a history on someone you noticed in the past and recorded , not someone out of the blue. This is why lone wolf terrorists with no connections can escape detection. Further the kind of techniques used to look for a potential terrorist in a crowd is completely different than trying to screen someone one at a time-you can't use it in a room with one person. The reality is the best detector is one's own gut in any situation and even then you might be wrong or right. So I second your comments as would most soldiers. They wish detection of terrorists was that easy. Trying to pick someone out of a crowd or on the street is not something one does easily. Its why soldiers and police are always second guessed.

Its safe to presume they will have to be quarantined for 14 days if they show no signs of the flue or immediately intercepted and quarantined on arrival showing any possible symptoms.. Whether they volunteer to do it or have to be forced to do it by detention remains to be seen. The third identified case was someone from Wuhan who had no symptoms and volunteered on his return to quarantined himself at home and then became sick. Immigration and health laws on entry to Canada can order quarantines on arrival and err on the side of caution. If it can be shown its done to protect the public from possible disease, it would be inconceivable someone challenging it under the Charter as an unreasonable and arbitrary detention in contradiction to Charter sections 7,8,9 or 12. It may even be conceivable if it was challenged this would be the first time s.1 of the Charter would be applied. That is legal fiction however. Hopefully quarantine and observation of people without symptoms and immediate quarantine for those infected or showing any signs of infection. As for masks: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/do-surgical-masks-protect-against-coronavirus/news-story/44a9bf2cd5434b278b2f489b51d49972

In regards to your first statement and question yes I reject the context of you posing yas a white patriotic conservative or victim of intolerance and prejudice. Your views are challenged not because you are white, nor do I challenge patriotism or conservatism as concepts. I do however challenge your views. So your attempt to now deflect from your views being challenge by trying to redirect discussion to subjective descriptions of you as a victim is ignored. I challenge your words as putrid bigotry. I challenge them as putrid bigotry for the reasons I have continued to state in responses to you and so In regards to your second statement/question I also state I have in the past numerous times in challenges to your views reposted your bigoted statements in which you made it clear of the following: 1-you do not consider "Jews whites" and do not want any Jews in Canada; 2-you do not want any non whites in Canada because you feel they are ruining the country; 3-your definition of white is not just someone white but someone of Engllish or Scottish ancestry; 4-a Christian to be acceptable to you must interpret the religion to believe 1-3 and in particular that non white people are inferior, So your attempts to now feign that you stated the above views on this forum in previous responses is laughable. Anyone can find them by simply going back and typing in your name or mine or doing a word search. Finally in response to your third statement, "my ilk" is not the issue, neither are you as a person, neither is anyone else. The issue are your bigoted references using threads to promulgate 1-4. When you use threads and topics to promulgate 1-4 I will continue as I have to challenge your words. Switching back to the thread from you, it is conceivable in the future with a serious outbreak anyone coming from a specific geographic region or country may have to be isolated. The point I make and you are well aware of is it wouldn't make a rat's ass of a difference if the person was "white", "pink", or "yellow" its the location and proximity to the communicable or contagious disease that would make them a risk.

To put what I said in context, Shady had stated and I quote: "Imagine if it had originated from a white country. It would probably be deemed racist! " I then responded: "It depends if they are ZOGS oh hell no. Now me, I would not touch the hands of white people. If you touch them, you develop a horrible disorder where you want to boil meat. wear checkered pants, play golf and put mayonnaise on everything not to mention drive Cheverolet Impalas and drink Molson Export Ale and think Shania Twain is exotic." You now above state" "Quote: "Now me, I would not touch the hands of white people". I think that your anti-white people racism is starting to show by the looks of those words you mentioned? Deplorable words indeed." You remove the comment out of its actual context and hey now-tee-hee, pose you did not know it was said in sacrcasm in response to trying to make the Corona Virus outbreak a race issue while in the same sentence utter this effluence: " I wonder what Canada would be like today if we the conservative people of Canada could wash our hands of "ZOGS" and China? Canada could possibly become a great and wealthy nation that it once was once again." You never fail to exhibit your only reason to come on any thread is to exploit the issue being discussed as an opportunity to spew hatred. Oh look a Taxme a mask you can wear and say is to prevent the Corona virus. Its custom made for your head. Do note the point at the top.

Harper brought in 40,000 refugees and they were all privately sponsored and have not cost the country a penny. In regards to the Syrian refugees that have not been privately sponsored some of them are doing miserably and others so-so but still better then what they came from and others have a life far better than what they came from. Why you single them out from all other refugees is interesting. You clearly are concerned for them. Given you have admitted on this forum you only want Caucasians of English descent and "Christian" your comments on this issue are tainted. The statistics as to how refugees are doing is public domain and Taxme could talk to a refugee to find out how they are doing-right. For others, if they do want to investigate the issue of refugees coming to Canada there are many sources: https://www.statista.com/topics/2897/refugees-in-canada/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/syrian-refugees-in-canada-by-the-numbers/article33120934/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrian-refugees-struggling-social-assistance-language-barrier-1.4368833 https://globalnews.ca/news/6223499/canada-refugee-policy/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/syrian-refugees-struggle-financially-but-are-happy-in-canada-1.3912906 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35447113 https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-in-canada-four-years-after-the-welcome-126312 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231588712_How_Are_New_Refugees_Doing_in_Canada_Comparison_of_the_Health_and_Settlement_of_the_Kosovars_and_Czech_Roma The media of course is not necessarily accurate but it is a starting point. It shows resettling has many problems but nobody claims otherwise. In regards to the cost of refugees it is public domain and no one says government run refugee programs do not cost. We also know the moment the government gets involved there are bound to be deficiencies leading to unnecessary costs..... however does that automatically mean refugees should not come here? Well I would argue it may mean when the government runs a refugee program it might be mismanaging funds but I would argue mismanagement of funds is a separate issue because we know that qhen refugees are privately sponsored they do not cost Canada a damn penny. So given that fact it's not taking in refugees that is necessarily the problem with costs, it's the government's involvement in the process that may be generating inefficiency and unnecessary cost and this is why I argue maybe its time for the government to get out of its current process and let private sponsorship take over and re-route money to actual support of refugees in refugee camps for education, shelter, water, medical services. Here is some stuff on the cost: https://ccrweb.ca/en/pensioners-myth https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-do-refugees-get-more-financial-help-than-canadian-pensioners-1.2670735 https://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/the-high-cost-of-illegal-migrants/wcm/a2cdce17-4808-48df-9569-1247cba8bcf0 https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/11/22/bringing-25000-syrian-refugees-to-canada-cost-385m/ https://ccrweb.ca/en/refugee-healthcare-costs https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/irregular-migrants-on-track-to-cost-canada-almost-400-million-watchdog-says-1.4197552 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-billion-six-years-1.3327780 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/19/cost-of-syrian-refugee-plan-pegged-at-12b-over-six-years.html https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/this-is-how-much-money-syrian-refugees-will-cost-taxpayers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/refugees-give-more-money-to-the-government-than-the-government-gives-to-them-study-says/

Ignoring what I said won't make it go away. Pretending to documents are not attached to one another and removing one from its actual context won't change its meaning either...but hey its cherry picking....no actually its not, with due respect I am not cherry picking, I am simply asking you to read documents in context. When you read any document, you don't isolate it from the documents it follows and expands on and pretend it does not just like when you read the sections in a statute, they can not be read in isolation of the remaining sections of the statute unless it specifically states to do so. This is just basic law not cherry picking. I have no reason to write what I did simply to disagree with you calling soldiers terrorists. The child soldier principles never contemplated terrorists but recruitment into state armies. It has been expanded to mean children recruited into militias, i.e., uniformed armies in civil wars in Africa bot those militias do not recognize any UN conventions and in particular the Geneva Convention on the treatment of soldiers. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They recognize no laws anywhere and they may not even want to rule the state they cause terror in. Militias usually are controlled by a leader who does. Such distinctions are essential if you want to draft and create principles that make sense. Simply blurring distinctions and think you have a one size fits all set of principles is not only illogical but won't work. If you want to pretend treaty principles intended for conventional armies also apply to terrorists is nonsensical. When a treaty is drafted by the UN with principles it is NOT a law. It is a suggestion of a set of principles. Countries who then sign on to the treaty (signatories) agree to incorporate those principles into their domestic laws. Each nation is sovereign. The UN can not pass a law telling a country what to do, it can only suggest. Countries control their state armies and so can incorporate the principles of say the Geneva convention on treating war prisoners into their internal domestic and military laws if they so choose. If they do its their choice but it can not be imposed on them and its not a law until they turn it into one internally. Until then it is a suggestion. If a country chooses to incorporate a law it applies to its military. Terrorists don't follow any laws so telling Canada or the US to follow a set of principles terrorists do not makes zero sense. Canada does not recruit child soldiers or terrorists, other countries rebellious forces or terrorists do. No Kadr was not recruited into the Canadian Armed Forces so the convention you call a law's application to Canada ended there. Once he gets recruited into a terrorist outfit the responsibility for his actions remain with Kadr himself, his parents, the terrorists who recruited him. Canada inherits Kadr once he's apprehended. Then their domestic criminal laws kick in once he returns. Thus the Youth Offenders Act and Criminal Code, the two laws you seem oblivious to. As well when he sues the country, that is civil law, i.e., he sues in a non criminal court for financial compensation for a tort (wrong-doing) he feels his country did to him. When someone is injured, the courts are supposed to ask, would a reasonable person have placed himself in the position he was in immediately prior to his getting injured and does the injured person bare any or all responsibility for placing himself in a position that exposed him to injury. In your world you skip the applicable laws and legal reasoning and simply assume because he was a child he is entitled to money and is a victim on his return to Canada. It suits your clear political biases that Kadr is some kind of romantic hero because you identify with his values, but its not how the law works. We don't ignore anything that does not suit your narrative of entitlement for terrorists who conveniently in your world are both children to escape any responsibility but heroes for being terrorists in foreign countries fighting governments you do not like. Kadr was no hero to be romanticized. He was in Canadian law a minor who engaged in serious crimes. If you want to use an extreme definition of brainwashing to claim he had no way of knowing what he was doing because he was brainwashed then deal with the fact he no longer is now and has the identical opinions as when he was brainwashed. Deal with the fact his brother underwent the same conditions he did and rejected all those values Kadr still defends.

Pacifists do not fight. So how did your grandparents fighting manifest pacifism. Ridicoulous. Say Is that anything like Army Guy "feeling" just like you while he is in Afghanistan with his ass on the line while you are turning your back on him? Ridiculous. We didn't send our troops to Afghanistan to support tyranny as you stated....and hey say now, didn't you claim you felt just like Army Guy in that you want to fight tyranny in Afghanistan? What happened? you are saying he did not go to fight tyranny but to support it. So what's with that? Hey now that is ridiculous. Oy and gevalt and then some.

The lack of international convention to provide a legal set of principles for nations to incorporate into their laws has led to a legal confusion as to how to treat terrorists-so necessarily all nations of the world made a mistake. In fact an inability of the UN to get the majority of its states to agree to such a convention because the majority of them are human rights violators who can't agree on basic fundamental principles of fairness. So how does Turning your back on Canadian soldiers address that mistake? It blames Canadian soldiers for this. That is ridiculous. The US may have screwed up trying to come up with the legal system it did but at least it tried in the face of this legal vacuum What were the rest of our countries doing? We delegated the task of dealing with terrorists to the US and sat back and did nothing until the US Supreme Court said no. What stopped any of us countries other than the US for either removing our citizens from Afghanistan and trying them or allowing them to be handed over to Afghan authorities for Afghani crimes? The US operated in a vaccum of no help from anyone else and they only apprehended terrorists that attacked US soldiers deliberately and only began detaining others when we silently condoned what they did. The US would not have detained terrorists who attacked British or Canadian soldiers and not American soldiers. Harper agreed with what the US tried to do. I do too. My only argument is they should have allowed full disclosure of their evidence against Kadr et al. In regards to Kadr being a minor had Canada wanted to intervene on that ground we could have. We chose not to. Harper did not feel he made a mistake. In hindsight you can blame the whole world. Good for you. Instead you piss on Canadian soldiers. Its Arm Guy's fault the world's nations did not come up with a treaty. Turn your back on him because we sent him in the absence of our ability to come up with a better solution. Its his fault.

That was ridiculous. You chose a side to be able to state the above. When you finished visiting whatever dimension you transported yourself to remember your physical capsule is still here in this dimension.

Like I said your calling yourself a pacifist as your excuse for what you said is ridiculous.

I stated , " In today's America ..." I should have been more clear and said Trump's era. Your responses are fair if I was referring back to Nixon's era and past that. I concede that. I only meant Trump's era. Also my point is the distinction between needing money to run and personal wealth does not address the perception that today to run for office you better be rich like Trump or Bloomberg because the need to raise money from outside sources necessarily corrupts a politician before they can run.

see post below

It depends if they are ZOGS oh hell no. Now me, I would not touch the hands of white people. If you touch them, you develop a horrible disorder where you want to boil mea. wear checkered pants, play golf and put mayonnaise on everything not to mention drive Cheverolet Impalas and drink Molson Export Ale and think Shania Twain is exotic.

No yer kidding. I had no idea. So let's see now....I am ridiculous because you claim you " feel the same way about dictators and warlords as Army Guy "...only he gets off his ass and puts on a uniform and puts his life out there to do something about it...and let's see now...you....you do exactly what? Oh right I got it, nothing....but hey you feel like him. My point was, if you sit on your ass while people like Army Guy have to put their lives on the line you necessarily with your silence show the Kadrs of the world this country is not willing to support its soldiers contain them so you may as well stand next to Kadr and shoot at American, Canadian soldiers. You really think in the face of terrorism chanting Hari Krishna will make your boogy man go away? You romanticize conflict. Take it from me...I cleaned toilets and gave enemas. call me Mr. Poo Face, .I am telling you, watch who you are so quick to turn your back on. Make sure they are still there cuz you need that enema. From the sounds if it you are full of it. I do not claim to speak for AG or dare to. Toilets and the lowest level of cleaning butts and toes is all I know. Its enough to know though Eyeball you don't get it. You just take for granted you can shit. Regards Zog Enema

Armchair sofa warrior talk. Its easy to sound like a warrior. Before you brag about going to war to an actual soldier, at least wear a uniform. Next you want to go to war, I suggest you understand joining up with the people Kadr did to fight who you consider dictators and warlords is not the act of a hero. Stop romanticizing what Kadr did. He was no hero. Is it just me. The very same people who portray Kadr as a hero against injustice also will quickly flip when its convenient and say he was brainwashed and had no idea what he was doing...so which is it. Oh wait a brainwashed terrorist is a hero. Got it.

You did remove it from its context and I explained why. It was not a stand alone document. It was written to extend the previous one I explained to you. It was not drafted in isolation of it to change it. You and others have chosen to use the term "soldier" to describe "terrorists". You are equating them to be one and the same because they both have weapons. Terrorists are not soldiers. Soldiers are members of armed forces designated by state governments. Terrorists are self empowered criminals who do not recognize any laws. The conventions we have did not and do not contemplate child terrorists only child soldiers. In fact we have no international conventions providing principles as to how to treat terrorists and until we do there is a vacuum in leadership as to how to deal with them leaving each nation on their own to decide how to deal with terrorists within their domestic laws. Again I would state your replies ignore that we can try minors in Canada as adults when the seriousness of their crime can be argued to warrant such a designation. As well your contention there was no evidence he throw a grenade is not true. You are in fact confusing his lawyer's argument that any thing he said was not inadmissible and therefore his confession he threw a grenade was inadmissible with eye witness statements that corroborated what he threw a grenade as well as independent forensic evidence he threw the grenade. They are not the same. More to the point the person he killed did not have his stomach blown out because of an act of God.. They found shrapnel from the grenade throughout his body and they determined the proximity and direction of the grenade being thrown before contact to cause the damage it did which precluded anyone but Kadr from having thrown it. So his confession was not necessary and the issue wasn't whether he threw the grenade but under which law he was held culpable and whether the law could find him culpable. I can tell you under Afghanistan criminal law, there is no diminished capacity argument for brainwashing or differentiation between minors and adults and so he would have been charged and convicted of crimes on Afghani soil including murder. It was because he was removed from Afghanistan and tried under US laws his defence was triggered as it came under US constitutional laws requiring full disclosure of his charges which was never provided him. There is no convention on treating child terrorists that the US agreed to follow, none exist. The US had two choices. Hold him as a prisoner of war in a US miltar prison until hostilities between his terrorist group and Afghan ended, but then he would have had to be released with no criminal record. The US was not obliged to do this as he was not a soldier and therefore covered under the Geneva convention as to treating war prisoners. The US chose instead to create a hybrid mix of domestic criminal and military tribunal procedures to try him but the glaring deficiency was that this hybrid system did not allow him full disclosure of the evidence from which he was charged which four times the US Supreme Court said was unconstitutional and made his trial meaningless under US law. George Bush Jr. tried to amend the law 3 times after the initial US Supreme Court rejection and each time it was struck out. In regards toKadr minor I showed you the assumption he could not be tried as an adult Is not true. You ignored that. Now in regards to your brainwashing defence you confuse it providing a legal defence to criminal guilt with Kadr being innocent . One allows him to be set free and not be found guilty of the crime but his actual innocence remains questionable. An analogy to that would be OJ Simpson. He certainly was found not guilty wasn't he. If you think OJ is innocent good for you. As a lawyer I do appreciate the argument he was/is entitled to a defence of diminished capacity to obtain a lesser sentence but the concept he did not require any conviction from out state at all I question and I will try explain why. The concept of brainwashing absolutely taking control of every part of a person's mind to prevent them from knowing right from wrong is a simplistic fallacy. The degree of diminishment of capacity and therefore the ability to discern right from wrong its not automatically 100% because you say so. That is what has to be questioned through psychiatric exams and cross examination at a criminal trial. What we do know from the studies done on mind control is that the degree of control varies with each individual. More to the point if we accepted Kadr was brainwashed by your simplistic absolute definition that turned him into a mindless zombie we must then accept he still is. and did not end when he was removed from his captors and manipulators which negates everything we know about mind control. As well we know his brother who suffered under the same conditions has renounced the very beliefs, values and behaviour Kadr refuses to and Kadr avoids his brother like the plague. Why? I say that because Kadr to this day will not apologize for what he did, or show remorse or regret for what he did. He has never conceded what he did might be wrong or that violence as a method to impose or express political opinion is a crime, just the exact opposite. In fact in the few public demonstrations allowed of him that were, he showed very clear evidence if anything of a sociopath, someone with a fixed flat expression and no emotion and someone who showed contempt with his face and body when asked certain questions or any question that asked him about what he did and why. Furthermore if Mr. Kadr is noit responsible for his actions, then necessarily his parents are culpable. His father is dead. So why is his mother not in jail for her role if for nothing else than endangering a child and abusing a child? His mother travels to many mosques in Toronto and Canada preaching that terrorism is acceptable and she preaches an Islamic version of Islam that depicts Canadians, our system of laws and government and all non Muslims as infidel and that a war against us is a religious obligation. Her daughter, Kadr's sister also preaches the same message. Both live in a large house on social welfare while describing Canada as an infidel nation not worthy of respect. Kadr has sought contact with them repeatedly while his brother has openly questioned their beliefs he avoids. Why? Next while I can understand as a lawyer the argument that claiming Kadr was a brain washed child tmay warrant a conviction concentrating on rehabilitation not punishment, or even a lower sentence it can not ignore he had some degree of culpability. If it does as you argue, this does NOT mean automatically he was entitled to financial compensation let alone in the amount he was given. He could be totally hard done by in your mind as a victim, but anyone who engages in a crime however innocent he may be in law, under common law is not entitled to PROFIT from that crime which he did. Can and should we argue the $10 million was compensation for being wrongfully placed in prison? How? Even if he was brainwashed as you say he had to be institutionalized. You don't take a terrorist and simply drop him back into the society he left and condemned as an enemy to his religious values. He would have had to have been institutionalized prior to any release. That is not the same situation as a non terrorist wrongfully convicted of a crime he never did. More to the point people who commit violent acts even if they are found not guilty are still subject to detention for psychiatric assessment or treatment. If anything we have released violent people too quickly for fear of detaining them when they are not legally defined as criminals. The $10 million payment I think was an arbitrary amount Trudeau came up with. I think an entitlement to any amount, let alone the appropriate amount should have come from a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada not from Lord Justin of Trudeau. By the way Canadian courts have precluded the spouse of the person he killed to any standing which leads me to this final point. Can please explain as a supporter of Kadr, if he is a good Muslim as he claims has not taken the money he received or even some if it and given it to the spouse and her family. Islam preaches he should have done that. See some of us have read the Koran even though we are not Muslim. We know Islam says in such a situation he should acknowledge the pain and suffering he caused the wife and the deceased's children with an apology and all or some if the money he received as an act of humility and remorse not just to the family but with him before Allah. He has in fact displayed contempt to them both. You can romanticize him, I do not.

You missed the point. He came rich as President, he was not elected because he walked in front of a plane with his name on it while the song MONEY MONEY MONEY blared. He was not elected because of his reputation of being rich. Anyone once a Senator, Congressman or President yes becomes rich in addition to whatever else they were preceding entry to office. Obama aint in Chicago worrying about the communities he once did. He is on a private island relaxing.

Yah I noticed late last night gas down to 99.99 in Mississauga at 9.30 pm. I think like everything in the news we go hysterical. I mean right now you would think Koby Bryant was God. Hey I thought he was a great bb plater player but the media over plays some stories and people react with hysteria. I am not saying the spread of a flu is not serious but I agree with QuebecOver. Hey calm down. This has been going on forever, its just we are more aware of it now. Its always been like this. The advent of air travel makes viruses travel faster than by boat but viruses travel and mutate and that is nothing new and many happened before we used anti-biotics. Now we have over-used anti-biotics and their are resistant strains well we have other treatments. Asymptomatic people will not show any signs so unless you now detain anyone who is Chinese or came from Asia who comes to Canada what do we expect the Canadian Border Security to do. They are on the look out for people from certain geographic regions and any possible sign of illness. I think people also have to understand wearing masks and screaming and trying to light the person on fire when they see anyone who looks Asian, isn't going to help. The reality is you are constantly exposed to all kinds of viruses and bacterias. Good hygiene including hand wasing is the key. Also if you eat out all the time well of course people sneeze or cough on your food or touch it with filthy hands and what you eat may have been scraped off of previous plates uneaten to be recycled especially fried rice. Unless you can see the cook doing his or her thing in front of you, you run the risk of Lord knows what. Remember cooks pick their noses like all of us. Sleeping in a hotel room, touching anything in public, getting on a bus, train or plane, being in a crowd all bring risks. Unless you stay home and never leave again, you ain't gonna avoid germs and even then you still have germs. Well I imagine tourist travel or even business travel to China will slow down and Chinese restaurants might feel a bit of a pinch. Who knows. Maybe this is karma for locking up two innocent Canadians. Maybe we should all become vegetarians.

They will have to because the Republican Senators prevented a proper impeachment trial. They blocked evidence and witnesses and stated before the trial they had already made up their minds to protect Trump and prevent the trial. I myself would not be surprised if Trump would be re-elected. It says a lot for the collective psyche of the US with their political system. They accept corruption, dictatorship, abuse of power, lying and uttering non stop alsehoods to the media that are proven false, using the Twitter to write fractured insulting syntax, being rude, firing people non stop. No problem. It means nothing. Electing a President based on a reality t.v. show and him walking in front of a plane with his name while the song MONEY MONEY MONEY blares out, that's the kind of man, that's the role model Americans want. No statesmanship, no uniting visions and certainly no legislation, just the removal of regulations. A Presidency whose entire legacy will be based on insults, telling Americans what was wrong, but leaving no vision. Is it a surprise. The irony is some say Trump is a builder, he built buildings. He never did. Never did he build anything. He piggy backed onto construction projects charging them a royalty fee to use his name to advertise the project. This man when he did supposedly run construction never paid his workers and left a string of unpaid debts from the money he borrowed to build the project unpaid. He parasites off of the work of others. He played pyramid schemes with other people's money and labour and that is the man America wanted. Imagine a country with statesmen like the US had, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Wilson, T and FD Rooseevelt, JFK, Truman to name a few and this is what they have lowered their expectations of their leader to. Its sad and I again can only think once Nixon sucked any remaining naïve belief in politics having admirable people out of the soul of America, its been a slide down to the most base and crass of politicians. Americans don't care. They seem to have given up in expecting anything of value in a leader. Its all about picking someone who defines everything by how able he is to order others about and brag about his personal material comforts.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/bolton-was-concerned-that-trump-did-favors-for-autocratic-leaders-book-says/ar-BBZonO1?ocid=spartandhp Like everyone else Trump has fired (see above comments from Bolton) Trump and his cult followers will just dismiss the concerns of John Bolton as meaningless. The concept of "appearance of conflict of interest " is removed from the test of conflict of interest. The fact that there is a direct link between a man ordering the hold back of funds to Ukraine and his having told them to investigate Joe Biden does not matter. In the Trump world, this is not a problem. Anyone who disagrees with Trump is insulted by Twitter and called something derogatory. The repeat litany of hundreds being fired and his own National Security Advisor uncomfortable with his dealings with not just Ukraine but Turkey and China, no problem. Its Trump he can do anything. A President can't be questioned about self interest.

The site below discusses medical exams but you will note if you are planning to stay less than 6 months you are not required to do one unless you are going to work in these areas: health sciences, nursing or geriatric homes, medical students going to medical universities, physicians on short term jobs, teachers, domestics , people who look after children, the elderly ro disabled, lab workers, agricultural workers (but only who have visited or lived in a suspect nation more more than 6 months during the past year. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/medical-exams/requirements-temporary-residents.html Other than the above the CBSA officer on your entry CAN if he or she suspects you have a medical condition that might endanger the public safety or public health or cause an execessive demand on health or social services can declare you inadmissable and not allow you to enter. The power is there, but as one poster said, if a medical condition is dormant the officer won't have any reason to stop up the person UNLESS a bulletin is issued at the borders to these officers to stop anyone from a particular geographic region. Immigration Canada working on conjunction with the federal and provincial Ministries of Health and the World Health Organizations and non profit medical organizations and Health agencies, governments and organizations around the world, is supposed to share evidence on the movement of communicable diseases and if need be shut down specific movement from specific geographic areas. In fact I hate the Chinese government, but its true, they did voluntarily shut down the movement and departure of persons from the region once they knew how widespread it is and now Canada, Jordan, the US, other Western nations are asking to help and take their citizens with the disease back to unburden the Chinese. This is not the first or last time it will happen and as all of you have mentioned unless you shut down anyone coming from a particular geographic zone automatically, there is no other guaranteed way to prevent the spread of diseases. Once in an airplane while the plane circulates air from outside its sneezing, touching, breathing, that spreads the virus not necessarily the air itself. Masks do not do anything. They make people feel better but they have very little effect other than providing a false sense of security. What we do know is if you handle animals unsafely and don't wash your hands which is the case in China, the touching of raw flesh then not washing your hands and passing that on, causes viruses to jump. The flesh with the virus can be any flesh, chickens, pigs, cattle. It is believed certain viruses came from those in Africa eating guerillas and those in China who eat bats. I mean do you really know what your Big Mac is?