Bryan

No kidding. That's the entire disconnect when it comes to fiscal matters in a nutshell right there. People who do not have a grasp on basic math, yet they try to expound on the complexities of a federal budget within the construct of a global recession.

It very likely could. Sterling has successfully taken the league to court before over things he had far less of a leg to stand on. The problem the league has, is they so grossly over-reacted. Had they laid down a reasonable punishment, things would be much different. The league bylaws allow for fines and suspensions, but not for terminating ownership or forcing him to sell. If Sterling takes that to court, the NBA will have trouble making even the case they do have, because the recording that is their primary evidence was illegally obtained, so it's not admissable evidence.

...and those who do it should be given the same mercy they gave their victims. We don't kill people often enough, it should be much more common. When you commit heinous crimes, you are no longer of any benefit to society and you should be removed. The victims, families of victims, and society at large should not have to warehouse these criminals. A bullet and an open pit is much more humane to all the people who are NOT monsters.

Bring back the guillotine. Put it on Pay-per-View.

In Toronto, absolutely yes. The rest of Canada, not all that much.

$45 billion over 40 years is an awful lot of money. We should definitely cut out of the federal budget anything that cost that much. Does anything else cost that much? Oh I know, the CBC!

The Standard English Bulldog has serious problems. Other variants of Bulldogs are much healthier. The problem with those is, as I've also pointed in this thread I've had encounters with), is when people see a proper healthy bulldog, they think it's a pit bull.

Just because you refuse to read it, doesn't mean people aren't responding to it. There are several posts to that effect in this thread. I went into exhausting detail on post #101 and you just ignored it. The most telling rebuttal is your own quote though: They are counting any dog that someone thinks might look like a pit bull. As I already posted earlier in this thread, even animal handling professionals are extremely terrible at being able to successfully identify which dog is or is not a pit bull just by looking at it. Seriously, go back to my post #71 and look at those dogs. You tell me which ones look like pit bulls to you?

Sure what? You want all German Shepherds banned too?

Depending on how you look at it, we were never out of deficit, even before Harper took the helm. Sure, Martin posted official surpluses, but when the Conservatives came to power, there were billions in unpaid spending obligations. The Health Care Accord alone was $25 billion.

All of those, completely fake. Still being pushed by people with an agenda who know they are fake.

In hearing the actual audio.... it's not nearly as bad as I was expecting. A lifetime ban for something that mundane, said in a private conversation, is way over the top. It's bad, but it's not banned-for-life bad. I'll be shocked if Sterling doesn't try to sue the league -- he's had success countering their fines with lawsuits before.

Golden Retrievers are the worst. In controlled studies, they are the breed whose temperament is the most erratic, and are most likely to become aggressive for no reason whatsoever, regardless of how they were raised. They're really the only breed where you CAN make a blanket statement that "these are bad dogs". With Shepherds, it's their loyalty and ease of training that can make them dangerous. They do what they're told. If you teach them to attack people, they will without hesitation.

German Shepherds are significantly more likely to attack people than Pit Bulls. That's why they are used as guard dogs, that's why they are used as police dogs.

Sensationalizing is exactly what it is. First of all, you posted a link to an anti-dog activist site, hardly a credible source. Second, even if we take their numbers at face value, context is everything. 1) Who is identifying those dogs as "pit bulls"? Are they doing a DNA test? Without one, even the best trained observer is wrong more most of the time. Even animal shelter employees can't do it. I've had both a mailman and a meter reader report seeing a "pitbull" in my yard (my dog is an old english bulldog). This orgnaization (in conjunction with the University of Florida and Michigan State University) did an observational study of dogs in shelters that were identified as pitbulls, then did DNA tests to see how accurate the classifications were. Staff were spectacularly bad at ID which dogs were and were not pit bulls: http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/Incorrect_Breed_Identification.html 2) Who were those dog's owners? Pit Bulls have a certain cache amongst douchebags who are far more likely to abuse their dogs, train them to attack, involve them in organized dog fighting, etc. Pit bull owners are more likely to be criminals than any other dog owner. Dogs raised that way are the most likely to be vicious, regardless of the breed. Those types of people don't choose German Shepherds, even though those dogs are much easier to train to attack humans (which is why police use them). http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/ 3) People actually do test dogs breeds for their inherent temperament and aggression. Pit bulls have never been demonstrated in controlled tests to be more aggressive or dangerous than other dogs. http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/ https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

The bizarre part to me is people buying tickets to go to the games to show their protest? As long as he gets your money, that's all he cares about. Come to cheer, come to boo, come to wear your clothes inside-out, it's all good. Just keep buying those tickets!

Those calling for an outright ban, which of these dogs would you include?

I wouldn't argue that dogs have any rights. I'm just talking about the thought process involved in the demonization of these animals.

People report just about any dog bite as a pit bull. Most people couldn't pick one out of a lineup. Try it: http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html

It's the same thought process... "we know that they are bad, because we read about them doing bad things." "everybody knows that THEY are like" "I don't want them around my children" "keep them out of my neighborhood" It's using confirmation bias to reinforce a preconceived stereotype.

For the most part they are.

You mean dogs that you PERCEIVE to be a bigger threat. You believe it, and it's in the paper, so it must be true.

People blame Pit bulls often when they have no idea what kind of dog it really is. The American Veterinary Medical Association regularly tests dog breeds for their aggressiveness and temperament, and pit bulls routinely score at the low end of the scale -- they are less aggressive than most other breeds.

Someone else's experiences are of no value simply because of the color of their skin? That is a very racist attitude.

Take of your pink glasses, there's some reality out there -- you might actually enjoy it.