dre

ISIL is just a symptom of an underlying condition. There's nearly 30 million Sunnis in Iraq and Syria that do not want to be ruled by a rival sect or governed by the Iranian proxies that run Iraq and Syria. As long as that underlying condition persists then this problem will persist whether its manifested by ISIL or some other group. There's the problem with the entirely tactical whack-a-mole approach. A way better approach would be to ENCOURAGE partition instead of fighting to stop it. Iraq and Syria are not real countries. They are the result of arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by the British who did not understand how strong a role sectarianism plays in the region.

Well keep in mind they also created ISIL in the first place, and handed Iraq over to an Iranian proxy, and turned the whole place into a hotbed for extremists and terrorists. That sort of monumental stupidity has to count for SOMETHING!

Well he was answering the moronic claim that Trudeau voters dont pay taxes.

Or maybe a man-crush

People just don't learn. This is the result of the MASSIVE miscalculation that the invasion of Iraq, on the part of western "leaders", and the hapless supports of that policy. All whack-a-mole tactics and no strategy at all. ISIL is merely a symptom of the fact that there is nearly 30 million Sunnis in Iraq and Syria that are being forced to submit to Iranian backed shias in Iraq, and Iranian backed Allawites in Syria. Even if you kill every single ISIL member it wont do a thing to change that. The region needs to be partitioned. If the west fights to maintain the current broken borders, we are actually unwittingly fighting to strengthen Iran influence in the region, and fighting to maintain an unworkable political situation that will never stop producing more moles to wack.

Its not irrevocable in fact the referendum results are not binding on the government in any way. At one point Cameron threatened that a LEAVE vote would trigger the automatic invoking of Article 50, but he didn't follow through on it. And no government has to if they don't want to. There's political pressure on the government to not piss off 53% of the electorate but that's it. If they want to they can have more referendums.. The EU cant do a thing about it. Or they could make a general election another referendum on EU membership based on what parties campaign on.

Well not really the same. In the Euro most countries have accepted the common currency. That means that interest rates are no longer set by central banks controlled by elected national governments. So agrarian economies are forced to endure interest rates set for countries like France and Germany when their rates should in fact be much higher.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html There's a good definition and some examples there. The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is that macroevolution results in speciation. The new offspring can no longer breed with the species it emerged from and a new species is created. That's why you cant f&^k a bird and expect to have a little human/bird baby even though we have common ancestry.

But the entire assumption underpinning your argument has already gone up in flames, and you ABANDONED THREAD. The connection between the two is clear and well documented and in fact they are the exact same phenomenon except that macro-evolution produces a new species.

This is a bit too simplistic. Its true that immigration was a big factor in the vote but just because someone is concerned about immigration does not mean they are racists. Further more the euro-skeptic movement in the UK has been growing for a long time... decades. And its really about the loss of sovereignty and people losing the ability to govern themselves in a national democracy. Was racism a motivation for many on the LEAVE side? Sure... but its still a lot more complicated than that. I'm not a racist, and I'm generally in favor of letting in quite a few immigrants, but I STILL wouldnt want Canada's immigration policy to be set by a bunch of bureaucrats and bankers in another country that are not even directly accountable to Canadian voters.

Well the one good thing about the EU is that it allowed Germany to take over without killing millions of people. One positive thing about integration is that the more European states are dependent on each other and linked to one another the less likely they are to start gigantic wars every 50 years or so. Canada and the US is a totally different dynamic. We are gnat living next to an elephant. Everyone knows who's in charge and there's nothing to fight about. Its a naturally symbiotic relationship. Having said that, globalists and free traders would like to crush democracy in Canada and the US as well. If we ratify the TPP we surrender the right for democratically elected governments to write laws around things like patents, and intellectual property. Another agreement being worked would eliminate borders similar to what the Shengen agreement did in Europe. Its no surprise that free traders and globalists hate democracy because every time people are actually given the chance to vote on any of their projects they are told to jam them up their asses. The NO vote in Britain is a significant victory for common sense but the slow steady march towards a global state run by corporations and bankers will continue.

The Euro is an evil little project that robs Europeans of representation, and results in laws being made by unelected professional bureaucrats, technocrats and bankers. These projects all start out innocent enough... "Free trade man!". But the devil is in the details and trade agreements today end up being more about harmonizing laws, etc, and take away power from voters. At least Britain actually gave its citizens a choice... Canada should have a similar referendum on the TPP.

Well you can essentially say the same thing about the entire concept of government. Id like to opt out of paying to bomb random darkies in the middle east. Like to opt out of paying for all corporate subsidies as well. In fact, I would like to pay for nothing besides water to my house, and maintenance on the roads within 100 miles of it.

Well when someone makes a thread criticizing appointments and the only substantive point is that there isnt enough white ones... then obviously some people are going to question your motivation. Especially after being challenged for 6 pages with coming up with a single reason why any of the appointees are not qualified you come up with absolutely nothing at all.

ROFL

I guess that must be it...

I would rather have the government not regulate the web at all.

Oh good grief....

This whole thread is just stupid. Obviously appointments made by political parties are at the very least PARTLY political. And trying to read the tea-leaves and attribute exactly how much politics played into these decisions obviously futile. What exactly is this moronic thread even about?

No need! Poster "August" is "point free"!

I disagree. I don't think that governments should even have the ability to take stuff off the web.

Yeah because the liberals are "fundamentalist left wingers". ROFLMAO. You have about as much credibility as people that compared Harper to Hitler.

But it IS true. The poor save nothing, and they only get first spend on that money. A bunch of it will end up as profit for whoever owns the building they rent, a bunch of it will end up as profit for shareholders of the chain they buy groceries from, etc. And it will swirl around in the economy until somebody somewhere uses it to pay off debt at a commercial bank. One of two things will happen. 1. The public debt will be offset by a corresponding private debt being extinguished. Or 2. The money supply will grow and most likely the economy. That's why spending of this type is such good economic stimulus. Moody's did a study where they looked at every stimulus option including corporate tax cuts, tax rebates for business, etc. It found that the most effective delivery methods for stimulus were food stamps, and ei benefits. For the exact reason I mentioned.

No its not "dead wrong". Even just 10 minutes of research into the history of political philosophy and the problems democracy was meant to solve, and you save yourself a whole lot of wasted time. Its not the political system that's the problem, its the economic system. Once currency was decoupled completely from precious metals governments could now expand the money supply backed by nothing at all besides promissory notes. Every single country with a growing economy started spending more and went deep into debt. REGARDLESS of whether they had liberal or conservative governments, and no matter WHO people voted for. Governments with growing economies can write promissory notes in exchange for money to throw around, and foist the responsibility of honoring those promissory notes off onto future governments. THAT is the problem... and your ridiculous idea of apportioning votes based on taxation would not do a single thing to solve it. Whats more is that in countries with relatively fast growing economies, the inflation that economists predicted would restrain that spending never really materialized... so governments set economic growth targets of 2%, inflation targets of 2%, and sold as many promissory notes as they could as long as they stayed near those targets... and they used the proceeds to help fund themselves and their programs. It has nothing at all to do with poor people voting. Leftists in Canada have never even come close to winning an election in all of our nations history. And if you look at spending and debt in western countries there's absolutely no correlation to political party or ideology. The most conservative parties have run up as much debt as the most liberal ones. You are utterly clueless... Cool story bro! But they CANT. At the very most they could vote themselves FIRST SPEND of money generated by selling IOU's. But money doesnt disappear after its spent... it gets spend over and over again. Every penny in income assistance or social security winds up right back in the pockets of the middle and upper class, which is why its been so incredibly easy for them to grow their fortunes for the last 30 years and we have seen rapid concentration of wealth. dre, Our current political system, western States, call it what you will - is not sustainable. When 35% of voters can spend other people's money, no democracy can survive.

Without the state they would need a hell of a lot more than a few armed guards. And the richest people with the most armed guards would kill the other ones and take their stuff. You mean the election of another pro-business government that will maintain private property rights, and keep making it easier and easier for the wealthy to become wealthier? I meant Venezuala sorry. Got a cite for that? Nope its table scraps. The full course dinner is what the middle and upper class get from the government. Trillions in low interest loans backed by the central banks, hundreds of billions in tax payer insured mortgages, government action to keep the value of their homes from tanking, the flogging of natural resources to companies they hold shares in for next to nothing, huge tax breaks on their investment incomes (in many cases they pay lower rates than someone doing physical labor for a living). Corporate subsidies that benefit shareholders.