Bryan

Ridiculous fallacy. If someone has a pre-set list of concerns (whether nutritional or political), and then seeks out the option that most closely aligns with those concerns, they have absolutely made an informed choice.

This is an important point. Increasingly, those who are justifiably cautious regarding seasonal flu shots are getting labelled as "anti-vaxxers". Rather than brow-beating those people into submission, what it does is make them think that the anti-vaxxers might actually have a point. Inevitably, it has the opposite effect public health authorities were looking for. You can't put extreme labels on people who have legitimate concerns, because all it does is make them wonder who else you're doing that to.

Plenty of places south of Florida with a lower cost of living.

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies. Unless the PM has and uses the power to override an SCC decision, a change of PM won't fix it.

It's nice that we're finally free of that dinosaur.

Yeah, I think we are on the same page there.

Do you pay your mortgage by way of a pawn shop?

Wynne's budgeting woes are becoming pretty clear.

Expression is not what changes governments. Toadbrother asked me: Expressing an opinion on that would not change the situation, you have to act. A lot of people express opinions, but then don't show up at the polls.

That's when it actually matters.

Yes, because they are not the same. Men and women don't all use the same change room at a public pool for instance.

Expression is not necessarily translated into action.

Fully. And the electorate is the remedy. People who previously didn't have rights (including voting) were granted them by the people who did. A party that tries to remove those rights from a given group would have the rest of the electorate tell them how they feel about that in the next election.

Anything that results in them being treated or included as their opposite gender just because that's how they feel.

Again, I don't know what that threshold should be between regional and national, but "only in one province" in my book comes no where near meeting a reasonable requirement.

I was responding to ToadBrother's comment. The question was if being a Harper appointment automatically made Duffy infallible. Only someone with cognitive impairment would get anything else from that.

I don't think that. As usual, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. Daily thing for you it seems.

What are you on, and where can we get some?

Man I wish I shared your optimism. I love my Jets, but I'll be genuinely shocked if we win more than one game in that series.

For sure. I'm just commenting on the trial so far. Absolutely not. He's a dirtbag, clearly did seek to get everything he could from his appointment.

Baseball rules can change, different leagues have different rules. Whatever they are THAT is what the umpire has to enforce. He does not get to decide that a given rule is "wrong" and strike it from the rules.

It's the SCC that needs the oversight.

The electorate is the remedy.

There is oversight. It's called an election. Democracy, maybe you've heard of it?

No, I want to live in a society that is not ruled by the binding totalitarian edicts of an unelected unaccountable group.