Bryan

I did watch it, just watched it again too. She pushed her way past him, and initiated the confrontation. She raised her hand to hit him, and he defended himself by grabbing her arm, she lashed out again and hit him in the face, then he hit her back. Without the audio, it's impossible to know for sure, but it sure looks to me like she went in looking for trouble and ran into someone who refused to be a victim.

Legally, yeah. Socially, no. You do not get to deliberately get in someone's face and think there won't be any consequences. Talk shit, get hit. besides, in this case, the woman wasn't just saying things, she started physically assaulting him first. He hit her back once to stop the attack. Well deserved.

That question was a little vague. You could take it multiple ways. What I thought I was reading was: if someone wants to segregate THEIR activities by taking action to plan for that. That I have no issue with whatsoever. If the question is, should they be able to impose such sensibilities on others who might disagree, then absolutely not (and my question 8 answer needs to be changed to a strongly disagree.).

1) Saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.-- strongly disagree 2) Internet anonymity should be abolished.-- strongly disagree 3) People should be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive.-- strongly disagree 4) Certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups should not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities.-- strongly disagree 5) I support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people.-- strongly disagree 6) The media has a moral duty to make sure that the information presented doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue.--- strongly disagree 7) Universities should be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them.--- strongly disagree 8) Progressive western societies should respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender.-- agree 9) It is racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada.-- strongly disagree 10) Criticizing Islam is racist. -- strongly disagree ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- That a good test. Less ambiguity than the Political Compass.

Not only that, but Greece has already had over 50% debt forgiveness on multiple occasions. It already is pennies on the dollar that they are currently defaulting on.

Just women?

The thing that Mulcair was wrong about then and still wrong about now? Yeah, I remember it. The disparity we see in the economics of the regions of the country are brought about by their provincial governments. The two largest provinces absolutely insist on running everything into the ground as fast as possible. When they do everything they can to make sure everyone sees that they are stridently anti-business, they can't turn around and pretend to be surprised when their industries are leaving. It only further proves what an amazing economic job Harper has really done, that we are in such great shape overall despite how hard Ontario tries to undo it at every turn, and how Quebec refuses to make use of the resources it has (preferring to just sponge off of everyone else).

You do realize that is almost diametrically in opposition to anything you've ever posted here in terms of equality of the sexes, right? Seriously, do women not have equal rights and responsibilities? Are they not capable of the same level of self-control?

I've been hearing that for 30 years. Every election is the one where the youth will be motivated to participate.

Standard boilerplate so that no one sues the paper. You're seriously going with the Finance Minister not being an official source?

Economies ebb and flow. Ours especially so with artificially low oil prices. Good thing our house is in order, and the price will always go back up.

Again, your lack of read comprehension fails you. The quote is from The Greek Finance Minister at the time.

Maybe, read before you post. You'll get burned by your ignorance a little less.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/01/greek-economy-turned-around-yannis-starnouras-finance-minister

Exponentially more credible than anything you've ever written here.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/06/canada-must-avoid-greek-entitlement

Things were starting to improve in Greece too, until they voted in the coalition of the radical left.

In a very good position to ride out whatever comes our way without having to default on loans.

Considering that the NDP are currently refusing to pay the $2.75 million they owe, that's an accurate statement.

That's just it. Regardless of how much compassion, or even personal interest one might have in a failed state, at this point you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook. Several other countries are in in imminent danger of being the next to default. The example of the one that did fail has to be a cautionary tale, not a lesson that there is always another chance.

Not everything is universally bad at all times, but the Greece example shows that the cautions of how had PR can go is not just fear-mongering. It's a system that has huge risks that can and do happen.

Germany followed a solid plan. Third world countries are where they are because they don't follow a sound plan. Greece is where they are because they refused to follow ANY plan that was proposed to them. My family has been heavily involved in the building of a school and orphanage in Kenya. One of the things that really illustrated to me why they will always need help is how they got their water. They'd spend hours a day digging a dry river bed to get a bucket of muddy water. It didn't occur to them to walk to the actual river a few miles away, or better still to relocate the village closer to that river. The level of decision making was that backwards -- they do what they always do because that's what they've always done. You can't keep spending more than you make forever. If you do and things go south, it's not the fault of the person who lent you the money, it's your fault for not cutting spending.

See Zimbabwe for a recent example. It's a really bad situation.

Sure they do. When they change the laws to allow them to just not report the losses.

They should take that up with their elders who robbed their future dry. This situation is exactly why anyone who is even remotely intelligent is opposed to socialist policies -- they do not work. It's a giant Ponzi scheme that eventually someone gets left holding the bag. This isn't the great depression, this is one country that ran themselves into the ground. It's no one else's job to bail them out. If they don't enact austerity measures now, the trouble is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. They have to stop spending more than they can take in.