kimmy

What reason could you possibly have to think that either Jeb Bush or Chris Christie still have a pulse at this point? -k

I think something like this is very difficult to prove... but I also don't believe that the crown should take the attitude that "well, these charges almost never stick so there's no point trying." I anticipate that in the post-mortem navel-gazing after this case there'll be somebody who brings a race angle into this. "The only reason this ever went to trial is that Thewhiteman can't deal with the idea of a Brownman who is a sexual freak!" or words to that effect. Also I don't see that Ghomeshi's career has been ruined. He finally has a chance to pursue that long-awaited Moxy Fruvous reunion. -k

What I believe is that Newton saw that 280 pounds of DeMarcus Ware were headed straight for that football, and realized that either Ware was getting the football, or the ball was going to slip out of Ware's hands, and he held back hoping for the latter so that he could be the first one on it if Ware didn't get the ball. Here's a clip of the play. You can see Newton is going for the ball, but backs up when he realizes Ware is going to get there first, and I think he realized that he wasn't going to win that battle and was hoping Ware would lose control of the ball. People have been criticizing Newton for chickening out on the play, but I think he knew what he was doing. And I don't think he gave up on this game... I don't think any quarterback could have survived that onslaught. He got sacked 7 times and pounded on countless more big hits... I mean, his nickname is "Superman", but how much can you ask from a guy? He was thrown to the lions. (for reference...) -k

Yeah... I found it quite exciting... but a younger me would have been quite bored by the lack of offense. I think it's comparable to a hockey fan who's bored if the game doesn't have a lot of goals, or an MMA fan who gets bored by grappling. There's more to the sport than just big plays and touchdowns (or goals, or knock-outs, respectively) and I think as you understand more you appreciate more aspects. -k

I think that rather than a new thread for each primary, we should revive the "Democratic Nomination 2016" and "Republican Nomination 2016" threads. There's still relevant discussions ongoing in the Iowa thread long after that primary is over... I think putting the primary results in the relevant party threads will let those discussions continue alongside new developments from the primaries in each state. -k

Is there any reason not related to her being a woman that you think she has better policies for women? Sanders has a long track record of supporting women. I can't imagine why anything would change. It's not like he'd rip off a mask and reveal himself to be Billy Graham. In his own words: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/24/hey-bernie-sanders-are-you-a-feminist/ -k

I'm sure he's had a couple where he did everything possible and didn't get enough help to win... I think getting carried to a win by his teammates is probably just karma evening things out. -k

I just finished watching the first season of Syfy's "The Expanse". I quite enjoyed it. Some people have described it as "like Game of Thrones... but in space." I can see why people would say that, but I disagree. It has some aspects in common... it aspires to a complex game of political intrigue, there are are a number of main characters whose cards are never on the table, and there's an element of mystery that's part "whodunnit" and part "what's going on?" However it doesn't create that feeling of dread you get watching GoT... it likes its protagonists and isn't in a hurry to kill them off. The setting is our solar system in the not-too-distant future... I think they said 23rd century. Mars has been colonized and has become a prosperous, independent, technologically advanced society of its own. Earth is a fading empire, dependent on resources from space. And that's the third faction in the solar system, "the Belters", the people living on colonies and space stations in the Great Asteroid Belt. They live under Earth rule, but growing dissatisfaction with poor living conditions has led to an increasingly militant independence movement. Mars and Earth are in a state of cold war, with the issue of the Belters' independence movement further complicating things. It would be difficult to explain much of the plot without giving spoilers. The focus is on three main protagonists. The first is Joe Miller, a Belter, a broken down, slightly corrupt detective on the Ceres space station. He's given an "off the books" assignment to track down a young woman and capture her so she can be sent home to her wealthy father. The second is Chrisjen Avasarala, an Earth diplomat who uses her influence to try to prevent war from breaking out. On the surface she's a kindly East Indian grandmother... but she's also cagey, cunning, and ruthless. The third group of protagonists is James Holden and his friends, the crew of the ice-trawler "Canterbury" (water is more precious than gold in the belt, so they search the asteroid belt for chunks of ice and bring it back to Ceres station to be turned into drinking water.) In the first episode, the Canterbury answers a distress call while they're searching for ice, which sets of a series of events that brings these seemingly unrelated threads together. One thing I liked about this show is that it's one of the rare "space" shows that makes an attempt at making the technology seem plausible. The spaceships don't travel at the speed of light, or anything close to it. They take a long time to get where they're going. They don't swoop around like airplanes... they fly in a straight line, and if they want to change direction, they turn off the engine, spin the whole ship around until it's pointing the right way, and the engine back on again, causing everybody to reach for the barf-bags due to the high G forces involved. They've put thought into the economics of space colonization. While I'm sure it's not as good as it could have been in some respects, it's quite different from other shows where technology is essentially magic. Anyway, I enjoyed this. Luckily it'll be back for a second season. -k

How do you feel about Christie's premise, that being a Governor is more relevant experience for the job? -k

To expand on that point a bit... I just saw this clip from the debate where Christie savaged Rubio. Rubio went to the well four times with the same canned response, and Christie called it out and mocked him for it. I actually think Rubio's basic argument is reasonable: people have been saying we shouldn't elect another first-term senator because Obama showed what a mistake that was... but the truth is that Obama has been very effective at implementing the agenda that he wants, and the real problem Republicans have with him is that the agenda he wants is very opposite to the agenda that Republicans want. In short, that Obama has been an effective leader, but has been leading America to the wrong place. Rubio is arguing that the problem isn't with Obama being a first-term senator, the problem is with Obama's ideas. It's a good argument. It's an argument I agree with. The problem is, when Rubio comes out and states it exactly the same way 4 times in a row as if he rehearsed it in front of a mirror, it makes it painfully obvious that it was coached into him by his handlers. "Ok, Marco, when they hit you with the First Term Senator question, this is what you tell them." -k

Sounds simple enough. Step 1: Buy beer distributor Step 2: Win Superbowl Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit! My least favorite ad of the Superbowl was this ad, for Quicken "Rocket Mortgages", called "What We Were Thinking". The link calls it "What Were We Thinking", and "what were we thinking?" and sparked a backlash of people suggesting it was "the 2008 financial crisis explained in 60 seconds", or a trailer for a sequel to "The Big Short". -k

Well, the women making these allegations claim that the Muslim men in their communities have been successful in marginalizing them, with Labour Party playing along in the name of appeasing Muslim voters. The concern here is that despite the oft-repeated assurance that "they'll adopt our values!" ...it seems that significant numbers simply haven't. "They won't change our country... our country will change them!" But in England... well, it seems like the Labour Party is a counterexample. She'll grow up knowing that thanks to a country that's given a firm "nope" to Islamic ideas about female modesty being responsible for sexual assault. I agree that I can't blame Muslim immigrants for Western politicians pandering to them. I certainly do feel like I can't trust Western politicians to do the right thing rather than pandering when the votes are on the line. But I'm also concerned that the growing size of these communities in Canada will only increase the opportunity for such pandering to occur at all. Seeing the Conservatives back in the day reach out to ethnic communities by branding themselves as their anti-gay allies on Parliament Hill was certainly not reassuring. I've never claimed that non-immigrants will adopt misogynist behavior from misogynist cultures who arrive here. -k

I find the comments from Steinem and Albright really offensive and patronizing. Both amount to saying that women should vote for Hillary because she's a woman and ignore any other issue. Steinem went one farther by actually insulting the young women she wants to win over: Maher is right: a male commentator who suggested that young women were making their choice based on where they could meet boys would be lambasted. Steinem has since apologized, claiming it was misinterpreted... ...but there's no room for misinterpretation in what she said. She said what she said, it's not ambiguous. She regrets saying it, but it wasn't "misinterpreted." Trying to play the gender card to win back young women to Clinton's side is sad. It's basically an admission that they haven't got anything of substance to offer young women. I think that for women of a certain age, the idea of a female President is basically the Holy Grail. It would prove that their generation's struggle has been won. For younger women, the question isn't about whether a woman who is already near the top of the ladder can make it one step farther up the ladder. It's about whether they'll be able to go to college or whether there'll be jobs when they graduate or whether they'll be able to afford things that Steinem's generation have been able to take for granted. -k

I wonder how much he got paid to mention Budweiser? -k

Thanks for that, RM. Among the commercials I've seen, my favorite was definitely the fake tourism ads for Gotham City and Metropolis. -k

What an overwhelming performance by the Denver defense, especially Miller and Ware. I didn't think that the defense could win it all by themselves, but they pretty much did. Cam Newton didn't even have time to think on most plays. Halftime was pretty lame. Katy Perry and Left Shark were much better, IMO. I also enjoyed Bruno Mars' previous Superbowl performance more than this halftime show, and I don't even like Bruno Mars. I think overall I just don't care for Coldplay. The highlight of this halftime show was the montage they made of previous, better halftime shows. I think Peyton will hang them up. Go out a winner, like his boss did. -k

I think the Panthers will win today. Denver's defense looked really strong against New England, but the Panthers seem like a whole different kind of trouble. Unless you could find Tom Brady's equipment guy and get him to fill the balls with kryptonite before the game, I'm not sure how you go about stopping Cam Newton. The Denver offense has been "good enough" to give their defense a chance to win each post-season game they've played. Manning has put up enough points to win with a defense like that. He has avoided making turn-overs that put the defense in a bad situation. He has gotten enough first downs to buy the defense time to rest. That's all they've needed from him.. the defense has done the rest. But today I don't think "good enough" is good enough. The Broncos will need more from their offense, and I don't think Manning has it in him anymore. -k

Information about the ethnicity of criminals in Canada is guarded as tightly as if it were a state secret; such information is impossible to provide. However, I think most British Columbians have heard of cases where young Sikh women have been murdered by family members. I recall ten or so years ago when the Conservative Party were making their "outreach to ethnic Canadians"... it consisted of advertising in local foreign-language newspapers about how the Conservatives share your values, how their communities could trust the Conservatives to fight against gay marriage. Maybe Harper and Kenney had them pegged wrong... but I suspect they were uncomfortably close to the truth. I read this news article yesterday in which British Muslim women take the Labour Party to task for pandering to patriarchal attitudes in the Muslim community. I think it's clear that there's an entrenched sexism in Muslim cultures. Muslims are well established in Britain, for much longer and in much greater numbers than here in Canada. And if the Muslim community there continues to see problems like this, why do we think Canada's experience will be different? I think the main difference between here and there is that here, there isn't a sufficient number of votes to be gained by pandering to conservative Muslims. -k

I'm skeptical of whether many plan to go home again later. Interviews with Syrians I have seen almost universally include talk of how excited the refugees are to start a new life here, become Canadians, get jobs and educations, etc etc. Justin Trudeau made it clear that he envisions these as future Canadians, not temporary visitors. I think the defining difference between refugee and immigrant is the reason they left home, not how long they plan on staying. -k

This kind of inane banter is of no value to anyone, and makes everyone dumber for having read it. -k

Whose motive for what? Peoples' motive for wanting to leave Muslim countries and come to the West? I think the obvious answers are "get out of a war zone and get someplace safe" for some, and "get out of crappy countries and move to nice countries" for the rest. Is there any reason to think the "motive" is any more complicated than that? Personally I think the slogan that Islam is "the Religion of Peace!" is about as funny as the idea that Christianity is "the Religion of Love!" But that's not really the discussion at hand. This could be an interesting topic for a new thread in the Religion section, hint-hint. -k

But isn't Globalresearch.ca just a conspiracy website in the same vein as Infowars or Veterans Today? Why would anybody trust them for information? -k

The social values and cultural norms of the people who will be coming into Canada are very relevant to the topic at hand. I think there's lots of reason for concern without going back decades or centuries. -k

What's missing is a connection to current affairs. Canada isn't getting refugees and immigrants from the 15th century. This whole "Muslims did this in the Dark Ages, but Christians did that in the Dark Ages" back-and-forth bickering is completely devoid of relevance to today's affairs. -k

Guys, ancient history is completely off topic. The Crusades, the Siege of Vienna, the burning of witches, the spread of religions in medieval times, all of it. This this thread is about present-day Canada. If one wanted to make a case that the Israelite massacre of the Amakelites was Jesus's fault, even though he would not arrive on earth until many centuries later, that should go in the Religion forum. -k