Bryan

It's hard to ever know what Cuba's motivations are or what they'll do. For sure, Raul is far more interested in normalizing relations with the US than Fidel ever was, and he's already stated he intends to step down in 2018. Still, the "WE want normal relations, it's the US that's doing all of this" meme is a powerful political tool on the Island, and I doubt Raul, or even the more moderate leaders than may come after him, are in a hurry for that to end either. One theory is that if Cuba really was offering Snowden asylum, that it was a trap. More than a few are speculating that Cuba would try to trade him for the remaining Cuban 5. As usual, no one is going on the record, so in the end nobody knows a damn thing.

Wanna bet? Cuba tops list for Snowden's final home - beats out Ecuador (8-1), Russia (8-1) and Iceland (16-1) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wanna_bet_odds_are_final_that_cuba_htcgBeDwh8zYSdmu3uqIuO I still read several sites coming out of Cuba, and the general opinion there is that Snowden might very well be contemplating the Island as his "final" home. It would make some sense in that he'd much closer to the US. I don't know how his Spanish, Chinese, or Russian is, but a very large percentage of the population in Cuba speak fluent english. The Cuban government would LOVE to be able to stick that in the US' face too.

That's what we used to have too. The PC and Liberals were the same package. The only true substantive difference was do you prefer blue or red. Mulroney was not a Conservative, he was a Liberal who wore a blue suit.

Quoting Wikipedia isn't really helping your case. Even still, if you actually read the articles you provided, and followed the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_distillation Tar is a man made substance. The bitumen being extracted in Alberta is not tar. People being honest and treating the subject seriously call the location "Oilsands". Jackasses with a political agenda call them "Tarsands". They specifically choose the word "Tar" because it sounds dirty.

People tend to get impatient right when they need to be seeing the bigger picture. Brazil is just starting to climb out of being a straight-up third world economy. As soon as there are a few green shoots, people want all of it right now. The Olympics and World Cup and other such events are not just the window dressing people think they are. Big things get built to host them, providing jobs. People come from all over the world to see them, providing even more jobs. Politicians and dignitaries come to them providing opportunities to build ties with other nations. Being seen on the world stage as "coming up" gives them cache when engaging in commerce -- more people are interesting in seeing what they have to offer, and are willing to pay a larger price than before. Things may well be as bad as they say in Brazil, but this level of rioting at this particular time is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The good things may not come to pass if the world has a negative view still lingering.

Six feet isn't that deep.

Oh My God, it's a mirage I'm tellin y'all it's a sabotage.

The gun nut remark is way off base. I don't own any guns, and I'm outraged. I think people living is cities just don't understand that living in a small rural town at the foot of the mountains, sandwiched between two provincial parks is a situation where guns need to be readily available. When that coyote (or bear, or mountain lion...) is wandering into your yard while the kids are playing, you don't have time to run and unlock separate boxes and start assembling things.

So we agree then, there's no credible reason not to require ID for voting. My house has never been broken into, doesn't mean locks and alarms aren't good idea. It's more than enough that it's been conclusively proven that anyone who wanted to commit voter fraud could easily do so, and not be detected. Even if it hasn't been a problem yet, it's still a huge hole in the system that should be closed.

Quoted for truth.

How does it dissuade them? Get an ID, boom, done. It takes a lot of work to live your daily lives WITHOUT ID. I don't think I could make it a week without having to show it to someone for something. If these undocumented people were dragged kicking and screaming to get that ID, it would probably improve their lot in life overall, regardless of whether they ever voted or not. Personally, I suspect the real reason for opposition to voter ID, is the Democrats are terrified to find out how much of their support comes from people who are actually illegal immigrants and should never have been voting in the first place.

Exactly. If it's a genuine concern that some people might have trouble getting ID, then work on that problem also. Getting ID is pretty easy. You know what's hard? Going through daily life without it. `I don't think I could make it a week without needing to show ID to someone. If there are people who have gone their whole lives without it, chances are they need a lot more help than just a card with their picture on it anyway. Instead of opposing ID, the lefties should put their energy into that. The whole system in the US is practically designed to maximize opportunities for fraud. The reason the DoJ doesn't have statistics is precious little is kept track of for any stats to exist one way or the other. One can easily point to other things that need to be done, and they'd be right, but you don't default to doing nothing if you can't do everything at once. Start with the things that are easy to fix. The biggest issue with fixing the other things you list is the US doesn't have an independent elections authority. The fox is guarding the hen-house in that the Republicans and Democrats are fully in charge of the whole thing. They enumerate their own voters lists for god sakes! Until they can take that control away from the parties, fixing those systemic issues is going to be nearly impossible. I don't know if there has ever been a push for an independent elections regulator in the US, but there should be.

I asked you what evidence you had, and that's your answer? Come on. In other words, there's NO evidence at all that this has anything to do with denying anyone the right to vote.

What's your evidence that it has anything whatsoever to do with not allowing people who are legally entitled to vote, to do so? One could easily turn that phrase around and say: there's no question, none whatsoever, that the opposition to ID cards, all of it coming from the left, is designed to make it easier for people who are not eligible to vote to cast ballot(s) anyway.

Once again, you insist on exposing yourself as the very definition of the term you're trying to paint others with.

True. Tar is a man-made substance. It's not semantics that the proper term is Oilsands. Bitumen is just that: heavy grade crude oil. As soon as someone insists on using the term "Tarsands". You immediately know this is a left-wing activist, not someone actually trying to impart factual information.

There are many acceptable forms of ID, that is one of them.

Reading this makes it pretty clear the real bigots aren't living in Texas.

Proving who you are seems to be the bare minimum that one can do to at least keep up the appearance of preventing fraud. It makes me shake my head that Americans are not required to do this already. The opposition to it is equally puzzling. ID is discriminatory? Yeah. it discriminates against fraud.

People whose credibility has been shredded in court ALLEGE that crimes were committed. No one has been able to find any of the supposed victims.

One percent of voters is still an awful lot of people. If the CofC (and the Judge for that matter) KNEW that many people were disenfranchised, how come they were unable to find a single one? We were told they had as many as 30,000 people ready to testify, but the truth was they had ZERO. Not one.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/conservative-mps-seeking-355k-from-voters-who-launched-robocalls-court-case-212799361.html I'd definitely like it if people who make accusations they can't back up get sued more often. Time to turn towards the media and their "sources" now too. If they lie, make them pay.

Asked and answered. Read the material you've already been supplied.

You can't be bothered to read what you've already been shown. Untll I see some of that, I'm not going to waste any effort on you bringing forth more sources that you also won't read, but will copy and paste an irrelevant graph parroting what someone else said that you don't actually understand.

I know a lot more than you do.