overthere

If you were an ally of Canada, would you feel a) more or b )less comforted by the current gong show in Ottawa regarding aircraft non- procurement? Do try not to mention Harper in your answer.

No, I cannot. There are no adjectives in the anthem. And Allah, is, praise the Prophet, simply an Aramaic and now Arabic word for 'God'. Did you think a Muslim or Jew or Christian bellowing it out at a hockey game or a citizenship ceremony was differentiating? God is God to the major religions. Only the Prophets differ. We are diverse. Didn't you know that?

Ahh, the defnce of the witless: BUTTTTTTTT HARRRPPPPPERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! The Waldo OCD is now officially contagious. So you are absolutely certain that Trudeau is not planning to sole source Super Hornets? And the 12 NATO allies so far who have decided to purchase f35, including all three of the other NATO Arctic border countries...., are all stupid and uninformed too. Gotcha. The prime responsibilities of any Prime Minister at any time are to ensure sovereignty and defence of this country. Describing the current PM as a dangerous fool is perhaps overly kind. If so, I apologize.

Which religion is that? All the major religions have a deity, most call it God.

Remind me what Bondar contributed on the level of the Social pioneers post WW1.

Yep. Matthew Fisher has an interesting take on how Canada, or more accurately Trudeau, will sell our sovereignty by this bizarre investment in Super Hornets- short or long term. Actually, it has to be long term as Canada simply cannot support two fighter platforms. The choices are all-in for Super Hornets, or keep the F18s until we buy F-35. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-why-the-super-hornets-will-force-canada-out-of-its-own-north We have elected a dangerous fool.

McLung gets nixed because of her enthusiasm for eugenics. Well maybe not, similar beliefs did not diminish the love for Tommy Douglas. How about Louise McKinney?

Legal hoops? Ramsay? He established his right to be Rooses heir by killing everybody with any kind of claim. Including Roose.

We don't have a national health care system. Each province runs their own. The provinces are responsible for providing health care to individuals under the principles of the Canada Health Act. The tax transfer is from individual taxpayers to the federal govt, then back to the provinces, then back to the individuals. I wonder at the efficiency of all that. There is no MInister of Education at the federal level, and I join you in wondering at the role of the Minister of Health. The department has some agencies for specific tasks, and provides medical care to indigenous people. All those indigenous people live in provinces or territories, which all have their own systems. I am not sure why it is necessary to duplicate that administrative task with a department of some 12,000 staff and nearly $4 billion annually in expense.

Look: the goalposts are over here now.

Creationism is quite linear actually. What is required to validate creationism is a single act of faith. The Old Testament begins with "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". If you accept that as fact, or on faith, then all the rest is quite logical and linear.

Post 158, where you say "The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, " and "push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'.". Was your handle hijacked?

Germany is not a good example for you at all. Corporations, unions, governments all work pretty much together for the common wealth of all. It s a reason for their extreme success in the last half century, and their form of govt is not an issue. There are occasional bumps on that road, but everybody knows where their national bread is buttered and works toward that end.

And leadoff guys are challenged by pitchers because they don't want runners on base for the heart of the order, for the big RBI guys(like Bautista). So why isn't Bautusta seeing a big bump in OBP and BA at leadoff, instead of a slump in both? The stats don't lie: the winning streak was in spite of Bats, not because of him. Barney is the best bet at leadoff right now, it is getting toward the bizarre that Gibbons won't play him there. He has nothing to prove at defence, and his offence has been great. What is there to lose, given that nobody else has played worth crap there so far? Regarding sample size: you had anointed Stroman as the Jays ace despite a tiny MLB record. Why not Barney, who is a proven excellent defender, and has earned a starting job off that alone? When Tulo comes back, why would Gibbons play anybody but Barney at second? Travis likely needs to go back to AAA for a while, and Goins is fine defender but nearly an automatic out at the plate.

Yes, that is why Travis won't be leading off. he is not up for starting player, or leadoff for now. Who does that leave? The stats for Bautista tell the tale, he does not get on base from leadoff. In the last 15 games, both his OBP and OPS are well under his season averages in both. The experiment is failed. Barney has much higher BA and slightly better OBP than Bautista. It is baffling but predictable that Gibbons persists. He does not want to hurt a veterans feelings by telling him where and how he wants the player team to play. Barney has excellent defence at second or short and a hot hand at the plate. He should be starting every day and leading off. Any other team.......any other manager......

why aren't we seeing Barney at leadoff? Travis, Pillar, Saunders and now Bautista have played themselves out of that position so far. Why not Barney?

The offence and Gibbons dropped the ball. Again. 11 LOB. We keep finding new ways to lose. The 11-0 loss was a throwaway, every team has those once in a while. The 3-2 loss was a warning. Contrast that with Ausmus, who faced a totally dominant for 8 innings, then won the game with apparent ease by manufacturing a few runs. By contrast, we have Bautista swinging for the fences with runners at 2 and 3 with nobody out-when a ground ball anywhere scores a run. We have Encarnacion putting in an utterly disinterested AB in nearly the same situation. The team lacks direction that wins close games. We have too many players who see themselves as heroes instead of parts of a team. Everybody is content and cheerful when we hit 3 or 4 homers in a game. Its exciting, but as our one and only game strategy it won't win a championship.

No, you fail to support freedom of religion or freedom of expression when you try to control what people say in public. Unless what they say is some kind of danger to public order, persons of every persuasion are free to say anything they want. I agree that schools funded by taxpayers have the duty to be generally secular, but you are wrong to believe they are public places. The sidewalk on a street is public, but there are no 'public schools' where strangers are permitted to leave that sidewalk and drift around the hallways of a 'public school'. What is said and done in those schools can and is controlled by school authorities. There is no issue at with anybody preaching anything publicly(other than things that are dangerous and illlegal), and I find it abhorrent that you think otherwise. 'Pushing creation' at the top of your lungs on a street corner is a right that all of us should defended strongly. It is disappointing that you do not understand how important that is to all of us. You do not explain how a belief in creationism threatens anything except contributing to an evaluation of somebody as being less than intelligent. Creationism is hardly extreme. Chopping off somebodys head, or enslaving them because they are not of your religion is dangerous. But how does a belief in the fantasy of creation harm you? Are you afraid of Betsy for some reason because she accepts a literal interpretation of Genesis as truth? Has she threatened to kill you because you disagree? Your example of anti-vaxxers is a false analogy in this context. Creationism is an argument of faith vs science. Anti vaxxers believe that science demonstrates that vaccinations are dangerous to children. There arguments are -to them- based on science, not faith. They won't accept that their science has been thoroughly discredited, but it is not a matter of faith like creation..

Its your blogger and your repetitive links to him make it your job to demonstrate his analytic competence and complete lack of bias in the selection process. Oh wait, there is no selection process. Has that program been "REPROFILED" too?. Let me guess, more consultation required? Mrs Farqhuarson of Dartmouth, NS has not yet been asked her opinion on the merits of the Typhoon? Or do you now support the sole sourcing of our defence future, the very thing you howled about a short time ago? No, what will happen is that the file has been Justbinned. That is my term for the growing number of files that started with stupid, unrealistic promises or unpleasant subjects that require leadership from Trudeau to resolve. Justbinning involves delay delay delay in the hope that the turd on the table will just go away for a while. It isn't a promise broken, just an urgent need for lengthy and perhaps endless consultation to arrive at a conclusion that is Just and fair. and won't cost so many seats at the next election.

I am an atheist, but I don't see all Christians or Deists as being embarrassing or ignorant. In many cases, they are far more tolerant than people of my ilk. Most believers are calm, not evangelical or pushy, and have strong and personally legitimate reasons for their faith. Who am I to deny them the comfort, security and fellowship they enjoy through their beliefs? If a belief in God allows them a way to get through the day or their lives with less despair, who am I to judge?

I don't expect any party to follow my direction, I expect them to provide a plan and I then decide whether I accept that enough to trust them with my vote and my tax money. You are confusing leadership with political opportunism.

That is ridiculous. Elect the Party that promises the most, because Canadians want lots of things? Oh wait, that is what just happened. I want a government that has a plan to ensure that a) our country is safe and secure maintains a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably c) has the plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term. I am not stupid enough to imagine any government should cater to my wants. I'm not four years old. It is not about me. They do have to help provide a few universal and basic needs, which are far less than 'wants'.

It is a long walk/ride and we have seen her only once. Maybe they needed to nail down the points that the Dothraki were willing to get on the ships(which they had always feared, and Dany does not yet know are en route and at her service) and that the dragon(s) were under her thumb, which the Dothraki had not actually seen before. But I think they do a masterful job overall of telling a very complex story. Can you imagine somebody who has never seen GOT sitting down at this juncture and understanding any of it? Can you imagine anybody who has followed it from the beginning leaving the show now?

Please stop quoting an unquailifed blogger as somehow having the analytic expertise to assess combat aircraft. Of course you like anything that gets Trudeau and Co off the hook, just for a minute until they impale themselves again, while you pretend other sources and other opinions have no weight. You and 'Doug' must be pen pals.

A President was killed by their own guards? Which one?