ReeferMadness

This is the way our discussions usually go. I prove you wrong and you dance around.

You didn't even bother to look at the link, did you? It wasn't a study at all, it was a critique of the methodology used in the useless study that has been bandied about by gun "enthusiasts" for a couple of decades now. Meanwhile, there are tons of studies that show that increased gun ownership are associated with increases in homicide and suicide as well as accidental deaths. Gun "enthusiasts" often voice this cartoon-like view of the world where people can be neatly separated into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens" (If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns). It's a completely ridiculous notion.

omg.... are you posting this from Oregon by any chance?

These statistics are outdated (produced when crime rates were much higher than they are today) and the methodology for creating them was highly suspect. Gun owners grasp these false claims like they claim their 'cold dead fingers' would grip their guns if someone tried to take them. If you're going to own a gun, at least do so without lying to yourself or anyone else why you're doing it.

Got new for you, pal. Leaders lead. They find good people, set direction and get out the way and support those people. Like choosing a highly acclaimed cabinet, writing letters of expectation and letting cabinet ministers stand up and speak to the issues. If you don't recognize that as leadership, maybe it's because we just lived through 9 years of relentless micromanagement. ETA: I've seen more cabinet ministers speaking intelligently in the last 2 months than in the previous 9 years combined.

In the wake of the BC-STV referendums, there was a poll conducted that showed most people still lacked a basic understanding of the system. This was after a public citizens assembly, 2 referendums and million dollars of public funding split between the yes campaign and the no campaign. It's no wonder, really. The media do a horrible job on the topic - mostly it's covered by poorly informed columnists who are more interested in provoking debate than informing anyone. Almost all of the columns I've read have contained errors and many of them are really quite egregious. For example, the media regularly refer to 'ranked ballots' as a system. It's not a system it's a type of ballot that can be used by majoritarian systems like alternative vote or proportional systems like STV.

Yay - another disposable comment from the crowd waiting for Trudeau to fail. You do know he won the election, right? And that "just ain't ready" nonsense backfired.

Given what's happening in Oregon, maybe we should forget the bridge and build a wall.

Yet the article says this: so IDK what to think. To me the article seems to have be hastily written - why didn't they get a comment from the government?

These same people buy microwave items and ipods and LED TV's and smartphones. And the vast majority of them couldn't give a cogent explanation how ANY of it works. They could look it up on wikipedia but they don't. There's a difference between what you need to know to use something vs what you need to know if you want to understand how it works. The companies that make these devices might have focus groups on usability but none of them would ever be dumb enough to ask their customers their opinion on the technical design a smartphone. Experience has shown that the people who voted against the voting reform didn't understand what the were voting on - which makes the referendum meaningless. Unless of course, you're an unscrupulous political insider with a vested interest in the status quo.

And there'll be plenty of time to get the vapors about the results when the investigation is complete.

Depends on how the treaties are written. If they're about discouraging marijuana use, it can be argued that is better done via regulation (particularly among underage people)

It could be the work of extraterrestrials. Good luck with that.

So maybe you can wrap your head around the difference between the concept and the detailed design. People voted for concept of an improved voting system. Experience has shown that most of them won't expend the effort to learn enough about the details to competently vote on the details of design. Kind of like asking voters to vote on whether or not to build a new bridge but not to expect them to become experts and vote on the particular design.

Even if those allegations were proven true, it's not even spit in the bucket next to the fraud perpetrated by your heroes. smh

A lot of people self-select and don't turn up on voting day - that's one of the reasons I don't believe in mandatory voting. In reality, people mostly vote based on values - I doubt that half the people who actually vote (which are probably the most knowledgeable ones) couldn't pass a test on the platform of their preferred party. There are tons of of issues that are of greater import and that are much harder to reverse than voting reform (trade deals come to mind). Why aren't you calling for a referendum on TPP if you're such a big believer in direct democracy. I didn't see you calling for a referendum when Harper rammed through the so-called "Fair Elections Act". The reality is that the Liberals campaigned on voting system reform, most of the parties (representing almost 70% of the voters) are on board, and they have the mandate to do it.

wow, that's, uh, really good detective work. wake me when someone has investigated.

You can assume what you like but based on living through the BC-STV referendums, I can comfortably predict what will actually happen: 1. There will be a lot of claims and counter-claims 2. The media will be manifestly unhelpful by printing opinions of unqualified individuals and generally spreading misinformation 3. The no side in particular will rely on voter ignorance and produce reams of misinformation 4. Voting system experts will be mostly ignored 5. Most people will not take the time to educate themselves but lots of people who haven't a clue about voting systems will turn up and vote anyway The result will be people voting on something they don't understand. Is the government holding a referendum to choose the design for the Windsor bridge? No? It's because most people aren't qualified to make the choice. Yet, people seem to assume that it's a good idea to ask people who lack the interest to do a bit of reading to weigh in on the voting system.

Calm down. Trudeau's been PM less than 3 months. The media is looking for controversy and they've found an internal memo that outlines some treaties that previous governments have signed onto. Then they went and found themselves an expert who is willing to say it's a big problem. There is no statement from the government so I see this as nothing but speculation.

Apparently, the answer is yes, providing you're a heavily armed white hillbilly with conspiracy theories about "world gubmint". Otherwise, no, you're a terrorist.

Oh, I see. You think it's OK to shoot a black kid on a playground. And the guys who are hiding in the woods right now with rifles trained on anyone who approaches aren't threatening anyone?

Who has asked for them to be shot or burnt to death? I'm just pointing out the rampant double standards (no doubt supported by attendant racism) of the people around here who defended the police executing a black kid on a playground and who are now all about restraint when it comes to white thugs with assault rifles.

The US Legal Definition of Domestic Terrorism: Clearly, the fact that nobody is calling this terrorism is just further proof that terrorism is primarily a political designation rather than a legal one. That's why it's so broad and malleable. If this was a group of Muslims claiming they were establishing a sharia law zone instead of a bunch of 'back-to-the-landers' pronouncing their own interpretation of the constitution, it would have been stormed by now.

They don't want the Federal Government to have control of lands. They want it controlled by the state and county, who, they presume, will encourage it to be used for ranching and logging instead of wildlife refuges. Consider them anti-environmentalists.

The twitterverse is having a ball with these yahoos. Recent tags: #YallQaeda, #Yeehawdists. #Yokelharam and #VanillaISIS