Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Smeelious

  1. I'd argue that people going into fields that require math would benefit from not requiring memorization. Whereas most other people wouldn't
  2. Can the spouse of the PM actually take a job? (Realistically...I don't think so)
  3. There are some differences, especially wrt ammo control. Also, military service is more widespread, leading to better understanding/safety/whatever.
  4. While I appreciate the thinking behind this (well maybe I don't) condemning people for asking for prayers for victims isn't an overly good tact to take. Frankly the Democratic candidate response struck me as being basically the same. They all said the same(ish) thing, and essentially what they said were also meaningless platitudes. Even Obama's "We can't let this become routine!" has become routine. He's the only one in a position to *do* anything, and he claims that a bi-partisan solution has to be obtained...Thanks Obama.
  5. I haven't had an upgrade work well for me yet. In every case I've had to do a clean install afterward to get things working right.
  6. Another weapon of mass distraction, IMO I think there are some considerations here though: a) If I hire a nanny they wouldn't have to be vetted by the RCMP If I go to Paris to discuss putting solar panels on my roof I can leave my kids with Grandma...Can JT? I suppose in either case they'd have an RCMP escort... c) Does the PM hiring someone make them federal employees?
  7. I find that, hilariously, gender neutral pronouns would be useful here.
  8. You forgot the /sarcasm tag...Unless you actually expect one. Though it's sad that it's entirely possible that what jacee suggested happened to at least some extent.
  9. I'd actually like to see you frame abortion as terrorism. I'd hardly call it straightforward, unless you mean saying litterally "Abortion is Terrorism!!!!111" Which isn't especially compelling, and that's what Archbishop Angelo Amato did...Called it terrorism with actually framing it as such.
  10. When fees come into play...(it's a pretty weak argument to be sure.) Generally that article doesn't say they won't make the changes, but that they are up for review. When (perhaps not if) the review board comes back and says that they can't make the promised changes, maybe we can come back to it.
  11. Well To be fair, even Apple is jumping on the USB C bandwagon. So if the headphones are USB C...and you could use them with every other phone / computer / new stereo...Since it would also provide auxillary power, you could have light up and noise cancelling without batteries...etc.etc..
  12. That's a good point actually. I'd be curious to see what Conservative campaign promises the current government keeps. Or rather which Liberal promises turn into Conservative promises...
  13. So, you'd need an admin out to get you and a friend who works for a telco to risk his job on a personal thing. Well I suppose you wouldn't even need either of those things. The IP(s) alone would get you a few things too many probably.
  14. I'd wager in most cases both is required even. You really can't have one without the other.
  15. I feel like I need to read/think more on this. Generally, it seems like business owners have the final say anyway...I'd assume most restaurants/theatres/everything covered in this law, will be "non-smoking" by choice anyway? How dangerous is second hand marijuana smoke anyway? How many people would this actually affect?
  16. The example he gave was: "I can enter a license plate into a computer and get the name/address/etc". I suppose then he wants the ability to type in "Smeelious" and find out my real name and address. Would that actually violate my charter rights? IP space is tricky though. Even without a warrant, it would be fairly easy to track internet usage. If it turns out someone was using the internet for some illegal purpose I would assume they would know who they were without needing a warrant. If then they needed to file charges, they could get a warrant, force the name from the provider and
  17. While I agree with your post...the last "except Isrealis" is counter to your point. (even if it was meant in jest)
  18. So is the source... btw 100% of people I surveyed think that 13% number is bogus.
  19. Honestly, I feel that the reasons they would claim responsibility are the same reasons they would plan the attack in the first place. Who did it is less important than why ISIS wanted it to happen. (Which, since they are claiming responsibility, they did)
  20. That last line is actually a very good point. I'm not sure that it would bear scrutiny however. (research time!) Especially given the Old Testament, which honestly you can't just disregard.
  21. I'd argue that by all accounts she is "science-y" but not necessarily "scientific"....
  22. Well in that case, people plead guilty for more reasons than being guilty. (Probably could rephrase to: Innocent people plead guilty all the time) In this case though...why would ISIS do that? I'm not sure there is a good answer.
  23. If ISIS is claiming responsibility, does it matter? What would the alternate scenarios be?
  • Create New...