Rue

Islam isn't the problem any more than Christianity is the problem because the KKK exists or Judaism is the problem because certain Jews applauded killing Yitzhak Rabin and hate Muslims and this is why I continue to make that point. People who used their religion to justify certain beliefs may be a problem. Islam is not a problem for me until someone uses it in a specific way that promotes violence for example.

What the guy said was stupid and us just as stupid as pretending this shooting is not a hate crime against Muslims. Two wrongs don't t Mae either any less stupid.

Yah you did. Doesn't change the pt. I made.

Excellent point. If we can not resolve such differences resentment of each group towards the other grows until it reaches the point of combustion and the fact is there is a limit to what can be accommodated in our society if we want the freedoms we have. Anyone not just Muslims who want to opt out of our existing value system in the name of multi-culturalism need to know that can only go so far and right now some Canadians have this naive belief we should accommodate intolerance in the name of tolerance. No we should not tolerate intolerance which means opting out of common Canadian values we don't like such as treating women equally or segregating who we swim with. These issues are not going away.

The two are inextricably linked with the same negative stereotypes is what the evidence shows.

Do you? You reject Muslim extremism? Right.

Your past remarks show you are as hateful and extremist as the people you claim to condemn as haters.

Why does someone have to "admire" Islam to disagree with hatred of Muslims? There is much about all organized religions a lot of us do not admire..does that mean we have to hate people who follow these religions? It was disgraceful what happened. Why respond changing the subject to rationalize hating Muslims...that is dumb. We can still be respectful of one another in spite of religious belief differences. The fact Muslim terrorists are killing people does no make the killer of these innocent Muslims any less of an ahole. I disagree with certain ideological beliefs of Muslims but it doesn't mean I hate all Muslims. Anyone being murdered in cold blood should be condemned. We all need to avoid the pies g contest of whose blood is more red. Oh phack the soft pedal..what happened was disgraceful and evil and an attack on all of humanity and this Jew speaks out to Muslims and says damn what happened ...your blood is my blood when this happens and I bow my head in respect.

The media definitely is inconsistent in how it reports such things. That said all these deaths are equally as dispicable. I also think suggesting there is some right wing ideology to scapegoat for this attack is counter productive to rational discourse as to what creates such behaviour. The elements that cause this behaviour are complex and often immitate previous similar behaviour. Also the livestream of this attack looked like a video game. I appreciate a killer kills for many reasons not just playing videos but the live cast could easily have been mistaken for one so I wonder if these killing games incite unstable people and if so to what extent.

I might declare wore on Boston Red Sox fans this year. I hate their smugness. By the way a lot of them are in the Maritimes not just in your country. I would say the same thing about LA Laker fans but I do not have to, they deserve what they have this year. Do not even get me started on the Bruins.

This is what you base your analysis on? Americans insult Americans every day on not just You Tube but Twitter etc., starting with your President. and far more than 1,300 times so what you say means what exactly other than you believe you came on this forum to accuse people of hating "America". People disagree with people. The fact that they might be American is incidental. The fact I may criticize specific US foreign or economic policies or the behaviour or comments or positions of Donald Trump does not mean I hate Americans. I do not know the vast majority of Americans and I would say I don't hate any Americans right now but if one cuts me off while I am driving who knows I might get annoyed. Your America paranoia is a tad tiresome. You sound like you want to sound like a patriotic American and defend its honour. You are wasting your time here. Most of us challenge the US government no differently than we do our own and it doesn't make us any less John Wayne than you. This is a discussion forum. People come to disagree and debate politics. Patriotism when its uttered blindly belongs in a Monty Python skit. Yah I know you have no clue who Monty is.

So did Hilary Clinton who was not elected. I hear that goes on a lot in the US...blood on peoples' hands. From what I hear Hilary ate children and did all kinds of interesting things with many Republicans and Democrats at spirit cooking classes. I bet Trump eats children too. Kentucky Fried Chicken he says....nope...that looked like something else.

If that is true yikes. One story Boeing rushed out which is being reviewed because I am not sure of yet is that in both crashes, there was pilot error due to inexperienced and improperly trained co pilots. So one thing to look for is it the computer auto pilot system itself or improperly trained pilots not knowing how to use it. French aerobuses used to have a problem with their auto pilots and many pilots turned them off on take off and landing according to a friend of mine because they did not trust them, Certainly there is much more reliance on automated computer systems during the take offs and landings, the two most dangerous periods of flight. Whether its better to have computers do things humans used to do, during these time periods, is the question. The fact that the two planes that crashed had very inexperienced co-pilots is a strong indication of pilot error given the sheer volume of flights with these jets but then I defer to others. I admit I know nothing about the problems with the 737 if they do exist. I wish we had a pilot on this forum to talk about it.

No to the first question so your second makes no sense and even if someone could answer yes to the first it still would make no sense. The problem with not reading something and then admitting you are talking about the thing you did not read is that you have admitted you are ignorant and it shows. You might want to read the article before you comment on it. The problem is not America, just your admitted ignorance. Then again you are in good company on this forum. We have a lot of forum members who like you openly state they don't read something they comment on. I am not sure why you celebrate your ignorance or short attention span or both. The article did not blame Americans or America. By the way America includes Canada and Mexico not to mention South America so if I were you I would use the word United States. I appreciate if you are from the US referring to yourself as American may have confused you. By the way its not a World Series. Its just a series of professional North American baseball teams playing. Once I am at it, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire are not that new. North Carolina is also technically South in the US and the US Virgin Islands are not virgins.

Oh come on. It wasn't that cryptic PIK. Look at who it was directed at and why.

People would fight to line up to work in a law firm with JWR. I know you don't understand why. If you find what Trudeau did ethical and acceptable I would suggest you take a smell test before you assume too many people will want to work with you. Lol.

You don't see.. or you do not want to see... Here are the words that prevent a dpa with Lavalin to consider possible unemployment as a grounds for being given a dpa: 715.32 (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved." Lavalin was indeed charged under s.3 and 4 of the above Act. I also explained and please go find it out for yourself, Lavalin has on record refused to agree to pay back all profit from projects associated with the bribes to Gaddafi which refuses a condition which must be met before a dpa could be considered as an option. I also explained the bribes were used to built a very large prison that was used to murder and torture innocent people and because which under 2(b) ui a factor that can not be ignored by the Crown. As well I explained and its not subject to debate, its fact, dpa's were never assumed to be used on repeat offenders which Lavalin is let alone to protect a company that propped a government which built a jail used to torture and maiming of innocent civilians. Tell me how do you Liberals rationalize paying a terrorist Kadr for being placed in Guantanamo Bay but applaud and condone giving a company that built a prison for Gaddafi with far worse conditions and you don't think Lavalin should compensate the prisoners placed in that prison? Do any of you stop and think before you just selectively tune out what doesn't suit you? Did you know under the lobbying laws of Canada Lavalin was prohibited lobbying on behalf of itself with Trudeau in regards to the criminal proceedings because they knew it placed Trudeau in a conflict of interest and that is a direct prohibition under the lobbying laws? Does that matter to you? By the way yhe issue is not whether a dpa should be used, it is whether it was appropriate in this case and please remember Crowns always had the option to use them before the law was passed. The law was only passed because Lavalin was trying to dictate specific terms of the dpa not get a dpa and they failed to get national economic interests to apply as a criteria in their case. That is why you see the words national interest written in the dpa law and this is why people are pissed off at Trudeau. He knows national interest is not a criteria but has led people like you astray acting as if it is. His real concern is a full trial. With a full trial witnesses will testify which government officials were involved in bribes and that could expose current Liberal MP's sitting in the house. You need to turn the blinders off. Never in the history of Canada has a company or individual asked the Prime Minister to intervene in their on-going criminal case to tell the prosecutor to stop the trial and give them a favourable sentence which Lavalin and Trudeau have done. Never. Trudeau has panicked because Lavalin bribery will leak back to people in his current government. The cover up and prevention of the trial has failed. Whether Trudeau's corrupt MP's are exposed before or after the next election is now the question because Trudeau failed to stop the trial. If you can not see any familiarities in what Trudeau has done and what Trump has done good on you. If you really think the unproven speculation that some people in Quebec might lose jobs justifies what Trudeau has done, that is unfortunate. If that is the low standard you set of your PM and elected officials you may want that but I sure as hell do not.

Liberals can be painful to listen to. Let's spoon feed some shall we: 715.32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met: (a) the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence; (b) the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group; (c) the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and (d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement. Do ask these Liberal patoots how regards to (b) whether bribing Gaddafi caused a threat to Canadian national security as he admitted to training and funding terrorists who attacked and killed innocent civilians all over the world and ordered his military to commit war crimes in numerous countries. Do ask the Liberals how zero proof of job losses, a mere speculation of possible job losses is by itself a public interest and not a private interest even if it could be said to be an interest because it only applies to a narrow group of individuals not the public at large. Wait that may be a strain. We still need these Liberal geniuses to then scroll down to sub section (2) of the above below and understand Lavalin already refused to agree to acknowledge (a), (b), (c) and (d)-they refuse to disclose the names of officials they bribed and list the names of the people who issued the bribes which means we need to have a trial to bring in a former Lavalin employee who has agreed to provide the names-this is why Trudeau has tried to stop the trial, names might link bribes directly to sitting Liberals mps. As well under (b) Lavalin won't aclnowledge that by bribing Gaddafi and Gaddafi government supporters this enabled the regime to stay in power and torture and kill its own citizens as well as fund terrorist attacks and illegal military invasions by its army. Lavalin built a huge prison complete with torture chambers for Gaddafi. Interesting how these progressive Liberal patoots won't acknowledge that. No Lavalin has never issued any disciplinary actions. Also look at (g) and someone tell these Liberal patoots Lavalin has already been convicted twice in Canada of issuing bribes to get projects. Factors to consider (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the prosecutor must consider the following factors: (a) the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities; (b) the nature and gravity of the act or omission and its impact on any victim; (c) the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization in the act or omission; (d) whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against any person who was involved in the act or omission; (e) whether the organization has made reparations or taken other measures to remedy the harm caused by the act or omission and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions; (f) whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in wrongdoing related to the act or omission; (g) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar acts or omissions; (h) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences, including those not listed in the schedule to this Part; and (i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant. Oh but wait, we still need these Liberal geniuses to scroll down to sub-section (3) and explain to them that Lavalin was indeed charged under s.3 and 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act: " Marginal note:Factors not to consider: (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved."

How about you read Bill C-74 and the conditions that first must be met for a dpa and the exclusions from using a dpa. You clearly have not. Had you done so you will see the new law does not allow SNC a dpa because of the charges coming under a particular act and the fact its a third time around offence. The rest either you bother to research or be quiet. Until you read the actual law you think exists and its exclusions to the use of dpa's you will keep uttering such things and I am not here to baby sit you on what that the law says, but this is the problem with partisan Liberals. You do not even understand the laws your idiot leader passed and why they don't even apply to what you want. Huh ? Ugh huh? Read the damn law. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html

? Hello anyone home? Maxime is a Quebecer. He has been silent on Lavalin precisely because he won't say anything not in the best interests of getting himself elected in Quebec. Is that hard for you to understand? Hello any one home? Maxime? You know he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and was sleeping with a motor cycle gang gal who was passing on his info to her gang? That sound like someone a former Crown Prosecutor would work with? Hello are you home? Planet earth calling.

You asked: "Let's start here...………….. What Generation am I ?" Only your hair stylist can answer that. You stated: "I don't believe I used race in reference to IQ, I used Geography." Didn't say you did. Geography by the way is a word without further context that would need more clarification. There are many categories of geography and while environment does indeed contribute to emotional intelligence and intelligence of survival, some believe other forms of intelligence are genetically inherited or learned no matter what the environment. It all depends on the context. One could consider a human in touch with nature and who was taught to respect it and take positive advantage of a relationship with it, in one context far more intelligent than someone who is great at business man who exploits and injures the environment but makes mass amounts of material profit from that exploitation. Others would reverse the conclusion as to who is more intelligent. Some people calculate intelligence based on how much power one has over others and/or how much material they can accumulate for their exclusive control to make profit. Me I analyze people by animals. If animals don't like them and find them stupid, then they are. I never met a horse, dog, cat, pig, rat, as just some animal examples who can spot an idiot when they see one. Cock-roaches too. They don't much think humans are anything but something you walk over. You stated: " But in literature and entertainment there is a definite lack of coverage on the genocides of Armenia, India, Mao, Stalin to name a few." Yes. You stated: "Lorenz is only one that has pointed out that folks are more likely to be violent against other looking folks. I'm not sure the metrics really prove that. Communism killed 50-100 million people in the 20th C and most their victims were their own countrymen that looked very much like themselves." Yes you do raise an example of same secondary characteristic massacres and that is subject for of course a debate long term by looking at all wars and civil strife.

The problem with people who look to mutilate deer is they sooner than later run into a bear that can move real good.

By who you? You talk tough. What do you intend to do? Who do you want to kill? Who will you replace them with? What do you stand for? Please finish your comment.

No just when they tell Trudeau to phack himself. Seriously you made a good point when TV cameras are on people play up to the cameras and it's why some people don't want them turning trials into circuses. There are cases where security issue topics need privacy and legal issues regarding privacy. It is a complex issue. Transparency to put into practice has its obstacles for sure. Good point taken twice.

You appear from what I read to be both intelligent and who will give a shit. I also get not wasting emotions. Just do care because your generation needs leaders not sheep is all I am saying. No lecture meant.Got it thanks for response.