Rue

China out of necessity has more rail. Shanghai has the entire population of Canada. As railway systems go China is hampered by earthquake zones that limit where it can place its rail otherwise it would be far more extensive. If you want a model, use Japan complete with its earthquake zones. Then again Japan and China jam people into their existing systems in conditions that would cause Canadians to die of shock and Japan has dedicated rails to bullet trains of course. Toronto is a city of neglect where politicians kept delaying extensions for fear of raising taxes and each election the politicians avoided the issue until now any extensions will cost a fortune and no one wants to increase the taxes for it. The fact is an extensive rail system for the Kitchener to Oshawa to Barrie to Niagra regions is a must. For now politicians try avoid the obvious by trying to hobble together surface Go train with existing subways. You tell me why there are so few commuter trains on the surface. You tell me why they cut the Go Trains to Barrie and other places.mThat said surface trains in our weather system break down because of snow and ice so that is a further issue. What we also know is one rush hour subway system is the equivalent of like 4 rush hours on the 401 in terms of cars. Instead of using rail to cut down on cars, we build more roads which only add to the problem with a city. Adding to the problem is the feds, provs and mun governments often conflict over rail systems due to partisan reasons. Mass transit is a must for any large concentration of population. So elect me, I will shoot everyone who disagrees, take everyone out of jail and all the terrorists returning home and all people who want to immigrate and have them build the subway. I will use the same approach as Mao. Work or you die.

Turkish academia. What can I say. Getting back to Queb's original point, most of us agree all governments are too large and there is a lot of redundancy and overlap with all 3 levels of government often working in opposites to one another. Unfortunately partisan motives always supercede efficient government administration and we all know that except the Turkish economic expert. In a country of 40 million to have so many Ministries at the federal level is ridiculous. The Solicitor General and Homeland Security whatever you want to call that should be one Ministry. Immigration, Health and Employment, one Ministry. Interprovincial Affairs, Aboriginal Relations and Culture, one ministry. Environment, Fisheries, one Ministry. Natural Resources and Energyone Ministry. International Trade and External Affairs, one Ministry. Finance, Justice and Defence, stand alone. That's it. Period. Also I would like to see the PM cut back on most ceremonial duties and pass that back to t e Governor General and stop using their position at events that should be apolitical such as Veteran's day. Same comments provincially. Scale it back

Hey now talk about some very extensive generalizations. Did you ever play it? Have you ever heard the language used by women hockey players or figure skating coaches? You need to watch wrestling. It could teach you a lot about nuances when people are being profane. Now Rowdy Roddy Piper you either liked him or thought he was a bad man. I liked him. His screaming was hilarious. He and the Rock and Jesse the Body Ventura were the best guys with the mike by far and Mean Gene Okerland could have explained to you why what has got yer colon twisted is all just part of the script but he's dead. You take things to literally. Many people do. There are nuances but if we stick our heads up our asses in shock and the sound of a word, we won't see it. Coaches in sports use some pretty profane language. It's used to stir the fire in someone's soul. Some deliberately taunt to arouse passion in their players and to get them to pour that energy of passion into the game. It may not be racism. Coaches and plauers may be deliberately engaging in taunts to get into someone's head to sabotage their opponent or incite an emotional reaction in a player they think is being too complacent on their side and costing the team. Context is the key. Their are coaches that are a-holes and others who are not and just motivating. Excuse me but I do not know the intent, context and motive of the coach everyone is turning into Don Cherry. Its more mob mentality piling up and virtue signaling. Having had coaches make ethnic slurs in my face I can't say I liked them but I do know for a fact they were trying to teach me to deal with it on the ice and not lose it and to channel the anger back into my legs on the ice. The very reason the Montreal Canadiens won so many times is because of the slurs against our players being French. In one sense a person like you would call it horrible. In the sense of our hockey Gods, the Rocket, Butch Bouchard, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Savard, Lapointe, Provost, Tremblay, Laperriere, to name a few... it just made them better. The look in Rocket's eyes answered every taunt using the word frog in it. The guys taunted like that always came back to haunt their taunters and prove them wrong and we all sat back years later and realized it was all part of a script and none of us were bad or good just trying to win for our team and get in the other guy's head with whatever crap we thought would work. Some of those who taunted me the worst were more loyal to me than anyone else because I stood up to them. Its weird to say it but sometimes those taunts are meant to push people into respecting themselves and therefore others.

Speaking about loaded, I believe Andrew does have diplomatic immunity from crimes he commits in other countries if he is in the UK in terms of them deporting him. Imagine if he was charged in the US with any kind of crime. He would have to consent to go back and stand trial. Fat chance. Also does anyone think he would cooperate with police? Ahahahaah. Right. Well he can go get OJ to help him look for the "killers" of Epstein although my bet he has already had plastic surgery and is resting somewhere cushy in the West Indies.

No they eat Turkey. Very delicious.

This just in, Turkey very important for Thanksgiving, Is true. Much beloved Turkiye wanted for dinner.

Yes on the first sentence. I admit that.....but....

Probably but you just never know....

Yah. Call it wishful thinking. I am trying to be his pr guy but stranger things have happened which is why I came up with that conspiracy theory. Its as good as any other..although man that interview...inexcusable even if he is disseminating distraction from something else.

The US and Australia both have one thing in common. They are all descended from criminals. The whole lot. Unruly rednecks. I prefer Australians. They are funny and can drink anyone under the table and have beautiful women and great athletes. I just think they need to stop picking on their sharks.

Lol/. No of course not, Celine Dionne. Actually I nominate Omar Kadr.

I am with Wes on this. If you could show me without a doubt someone is guilty of terrorist acts causing murder or cold blooded, pre-meditated murder, then I would say a reluctant hesitant yes. The problem is there have been so many people convicted of murder who did not do it or were framed I don't like the idea of killing the wrong person. I also don't like the idea of killing people in the general sense even if its because they killed. I think we want to kill them because we have been otherwise letting them go too early or disconnecting what they did from having them sit in a prison. Instead of killing them I would like them in those cases where they were cold blooded terrorists/murderers to spend the rest of their life doing something paying back society, i.e., building roads, houses or they do not eat. Easier said than done-to do that would be against the Charter of Rights which today would also be used to prevent any law attempting to reinstitute capital punishment as well.

Stop speaking as if you and "no one" are one and the same. You are you. You represent only yourself. This is in direct response to Jacee's continued unilateral proclomation of what should not be tolerated: source:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/liberals-fail-to-practise-what-they-preach-about-tolerance-1.3995329 "It seems to me that it is an essential aspect of any ethics system worthy of the name that it provides a restraint not merely on others but on one’s own behaviour. If this element is absent then what is put forward as ethics is merely a cover for one’s own personal preferences – indeed it becomes a tyrant’s manifesto. Certainly, there is little credit to be obtained from complying with an ethical system that does nothing more than authorise what one would want to do anyway." "Because it is right-thinking liberals who get to decide what speech is intolerant – and therefore exists outside the sphere of protection that tolerance requires – the result, in practical terms, is that the ethic of tolerance provides no restraint on liberals at all. It is only a restraint on the actions, speech and, ultimately, thought of their political opponents. In short, it is no ethic at all. It amounts to a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid what would otherwise be an obvious charge of hypocrisy:".... "If tolerance is to mean anything, it means precisely that liberals must put up with speech that they regard as “intolerant” of what they like and celebrate. Otherwise they are no better than that trope to which they frequently have recourse: the hypocritical priest who refuses to practise what he preaches."

In regards to your first comment many feel his responses in the days after he was fired showed dignity and just clarification. In regards to your second comment, you believe backlash is a legitimate criteria for censoring people. Therein lies yet another position of yours I challenge. Backlash can be or may not be justified. Even if it is, that is not the issue. Being angry and screaming no matter how justified is not an excuse to shout down another. You defend precisely the rational of the self-entitled-those who think their own sense of entitlement justifies drowning out others they don't agree with. You embrace intolerance, anger, screaming, mob mentality. You shout others down while expecting yourself to be heard. What you call backlash some of us refer to as mob rule-people with pitchforks and torches screaming death to Frankenstein, people who burn books, people who go on rampages smashing buildings and windows. Go read about the Brownshirts. They epitomize what you are embracing.

Your response makes no sense. Nowhere in the Charter or in any common case law or in any law does it say you can prevent someone from expressing their opinion which is what your position is. No the Charter does not say anything about taking turns, nor did I say that. Taking turns is based on proper manners and civility not law. I also never argued you could not express your opinion. I argued you can't shut someone else down simply because you disagree with them. I think Jacee rather that blocking your ears to something you don't agree with you go at least read the Charter and see how its been interpreted in common law cases in Canada and for that matter read some cases on freedom of speech and expression. Bottom line is, its not defined by your subjective labels and opinions.

Yes...they might be in the sense of being "unjustly negative" if that is your point...but that is not the issue.

These days I either have to believe Prince Andrew was working as an informant for MI6 or in the alternative he is an sob no one should support. I also personally believe Harry and Meaghan are self absorbed shmucks and not people I am fond of for being a symbol of decency and dignity. That said Prince Edward is a parasite useless goof and Charles and Camilla are antiquated duds. That said, I respect Princess Anne's hard work for charities. Ok Andrew's daughters are redundant as is his ex wife who looks like a red headed fig. I also suspect Liz and Phil are dracos and eat children. All that said, I support the symbol of monarchy as continuity of consistent stable laws. Is it antiquated maybe. Is it based on incest, insanity, inbreeding, madness, alpha male psychos, yes. I also think it played a valuable role defeating Nazism even though that fool abdicated leaving King George to take over and giving us a line of succession never intended. It played a major role in keeping the UK and Canada focused and united in defeating Hitler. I admire Prince Phil was a genuine navy man in WW2 and his wife Lizzy was a great role model in WW2. OK Princess Margaret was a tramp. What can I say.

You keep throwing out labels. What makes your labels accurate? They are subjective and so as a result not a logical way to determine what should be expressed openly. That is why we have a Criminal Code that defines what constitutes hate crimes and common law decisions defining what constitutes hate crime and/or defamation of character which are the only limitations to freedom of expression. It is also possible not to be an extremist Zionist and challenge Muslim ideology and it is also possible people who make anti Muslim comments are not slurring anyone or breaking any laws just expressing opinions you do not agree with.

1. No it does not. Freedom of expression is defined by common law and by the Charter of Rights and is not defined as only meaning protection from punishment by the state which akes no sense-many states punish which is why we then allow people under the UN Convention for Refugees convention to flee to Canada to claim unfair punishment and refugee status. 2. Your second comment makes no sense. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out about social, employment or political issues. It has nothing to do with freedom from consequences but the right to express one's beliefs. 3.In regards to 3, you or I do not get to decide who gets to express their opinion based solely on our subjective beliefs. The fact you may s ubjectively find someone creepy, stating something you disagree with does not give you the right to shut it down. If speech incites violence or hatred then there are criminal laws to deal with that. Those laws were never violated by Don Cherry he violated no criminal or hate speech laws. 4.Jacee this is about freedom of speech-it is the basic right for us to disagree with one another. You can't just shut someone down you dislike. I am the first to defend your right to say what you do-as I do now, it has nothing to do with whether I agree with what you say or not. I say Jacee, there are people I wish would shut up like you for the same reasons-they say things you and I could both disagree are in fact hateful-however that is not enough. We can't be afraid to let them speak and that gives us then the same right to speak out as well. If we censor them they go underground. You and I and everyone agrees if speech goes too far and incites violence or hatred then there are laws for that. We also have the civil tort law of defamation of character. With due respect, you are sounding like an extreme right winger on this or extreme left winger take your pic. Either extreme in politics comie or facist becomes one and the same shutting down open honest debate.

In regards to 1, yes there is if you believe your freedom of expression means you can prevent someone else from having that same right. In regards to 2, "Boooo" is not free speech, its shouting down someone else's opinion, see 1 above. In regards to 3, of course. In regards to 4, you engage in a stereotype "dumb as bricks alt right", you may has used the word ni...er, kike, chink, etc. Its a stereotype based on you creating a group and assigning it what ever negativity you project on it. Then after inventing this stereotype group, you assign it feelings and again stereotype whoever it else you invented and now call protesters. Then you create yet another group called "them" and justify there being violent by blaming it on "protesters drowning them out", which is ironic since your entire response is an effort to justify drowning Cherry out from being able to engage in free speech. Your reference, "dumb-as-bricks alt right seem incapable of comprehending"...is simply creating a stereotype, then projecting on it a negative characteristic which is a subjective projection and not based on any objective evidence or analysis. You projected feelings on this collective stereotype which are again not based on objective evidence but simply your own subjective stereotypes thrown onto this fictitious group. Then you create yet another sweeping stereotype you also call "them" (presumably due to a limited vocabulary) and justify there being deaf and violent towards people you imagine them to disagree with. That is illogical. You entire last sentence is illogical based both on its subjective projections and in its nonsensical conclusions, specifically: 1-you are not in the position of knowing what someone else understands or does not understand unless you ask them-you did not, you created a fictitious group and assigned them a disability, i.e., lack of comprehension-fabricating a disabled group does not prove that group exists let alone is disabled as you conclude, its just name calling; 2-Don Cherry most certainly did and has an audience, that audience may or may not agree with what he has or will say, and it is nonsensical to suggest everyone of that audience is a protester-the fact I agree with him does not mean I protest anything but it does mean I have a different opinion than you-the fact people disagree with others does not make them protesters that is just you again name-calling; 3-of course people want to and will continue to listen to Don Cherry and in this day and age he has many social media platforms he can use to reach his audience-I also tell you that you out and out lie if you stereotype anyone who agrees with Don Cheery as violent and/or a protester as you have. All you have done is demonstrate the very behavior in your response you condemned Cherry for and that is a blatant contradiction.

A pimp like Epstein had a blackbook and would have set up a trigger system that if anything happened to him dirt would be released about his vip clients. So I argue he is alive and his death was faked and he is on some island and they will redo his face and off he will go unscathed because he's got to much dirt in trigger release packages all over the place. This is why his accomplice remains untouched as well. Why wasn't she taken out....think about it.,, High level Pimps have trigger release systems in place to protect themselves. I like many who worked in the legal system know In Toronto of high level escort agency pimps with black books on Judges and police and politicians and so remain untouched. People are naïve how this crap works. I believe Epstein's network was riddled with spies for both large corporate interests and country state security interests, I believe myself Andrew was an MI6 informant and his own agency have thrown out the dirt stories to discredit him now the Epstein network he was spying on is compromised. They are just covering their tracks. Andrew's job was to keep an eye on Russian mob and organized crime syndicate money coming into the UK. His cover was blown and they needed a new cover story to detract from what he did and let him go off and disappear with a new ideal cover-discredited bumb. Either that or he really is a dumb phuck. Take your pick. He fits the profile of a patriot not a dumb phuck for me then again I can not imagine and accept as most do that he is a dumb phuck. I just find that assumption too obvious. I just found his deliberate suicide in a press interview just too convenient in portraying him as a dumb phuck. Think about it. He is surrounded by expert pr handlers. There is no way he could have done what he did without clearance from someone other than himself. I also point out again, Melania Trump's father,a high level Commie is Trump's handler for Putin. Melania was an escort in a Russian mob escort (modelling) agency tight with Epstein and the same agency Meaghan Markle was a member of. Andrew was appointed to succeed Philip as the inside Royal whose job is to head the society within the Royal Family devoted to protecting the monarchy line at all costs. I just don't see this man as a dumb phuck. More like a compromised operative put out to pasture where no one will notice him anymore and he can do his behind the scenes stuff with a great cover-being a discredited fool. Lol now someone will say, then Trump can't be as dumb as he acts, so he must be spying on Putin by acting like he's compromised by him. Nah. I do believe Trump really is a dumb compromised phuck.

Booed off stage. Mob mentality. Screaming masses. Me I get booed a lot. I take it for what it is worth-often angry emotional reactions at things I have said, often misunderstood. We can all in hindsight look back at our communications and wish we had been clearer. What I can be clear on is that I find people who boo usually emotional and reacting to their anger not using their intellect. People with thought have no need to boo. They are actually quite quiet when people they do not agree with speak. I learned from the people who disagreed with me the ones that remained silent and spoke when I was done were a great role model for me to do the same in reverse. Those are the people that I understood were listening. People who boo do not want to listen so they make noises. What happened to Cherry is a sign of the times. It is a shining example of people who do not take the time to listen and jump at anything they think will give them a platform to feel better about themselves by booing or hating someone else. The people who boo Don Cherry haven't a clue what he said or believes. They are just another mob and this world has no shortage of mobs and the martyrs they create. Every two seconds someone chases the next Frankenstein with their pitchforks. Been there done that. Come from a long line of people chased by people who did not just boo but lit things on fire. Cherry's only mistake is he was on a media that sucks the titties of sponsors.

Booing people off the stage. You see no contradiction with that and free speech. Right.

Zijad Delić. He's a good man. I was just in the mood to say something positive. My prostate told me to. It has a mind of its own.

I am sick and tired of leftists labelling anyone they think is wrong as a conservative. Bingo.