Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'm talking about the postings in Current Events on this website.

---

By all means, let's talk about Canada for a while.

Border officials tell travellers to avoid Windsor crossing
Front-line unionized workers are refusing to work at the Ambassador Bridge in protest of name tags

Posted notices about disciplined doctors leave public confused

Quote:

---

Ontario doctors disciplined for the sexual abuse of patients are often required to adhere to conditions when they return to their practice following a suspension.

Among such measures, doctors can be ordered to post a notice about the conditions imposed upon their practice, though a CBC News Toronto investigation has found that some of the signs found in doctors’ offices around the city are not necessarily clearly displayed or clear to the public.

One Toronto gynecologist, Joseph Siu-Kan Lee, was disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, after complaints from a female patient.

The patient alleged that Lee "touched her breasts in a non-medical manner," commented on them and subsequently grabbed and licked one of them.

She alleged that the doctor also suggested that her husband should perform oral sex on her and proceeded to put his face near her genitals and make “licking sounds."

---

Ikea monkey saga raises questions over exotic pet laws

Quote:

---

The saga of Darwin, the young monkey found wandering outside a Toronto Ikea store, is leading to calls by animal protection groups for stronger laws on exotic pets.

Befuddled shoppers spotted the tiny macaque, clad in a shearling coat and diaper, in the parking lot outside the North York Ikea on Sunday, after he escaped his owner’s vehicle.

---

Shots fired outside B.C. Ikea

Parents fight sex offender's return to teaching

Bold thieves empty corn silos at Quebec farm

Canada could be next for right-to-work legislation, opposition parties warn

Evidence suggests election robocalls were targeted, court hears

3 former Quebec provincial police brass under investigation

Who's looking out for Tim Hortons' temporary foreign workers?

Quote:

---

Erik Flores came to Canada full of optimism that his new job at a Tim Hortons franchise near Regina would open doors to a "beautiful life."

Instead, the 21-year-old from Mexico says he found himself walking to work in the snow and living in a basement with five other Mexican men.

---

Teachers’ dispute: Toronto District School Board will close schools if ETFO goes on strike

Anti-native racism common in Toronto health care

Quote:

---

It’s not unusual for Dr. Chandrakant Shah to have patients come to him in tears.

“They tell me that they’ve been stereotyped and discriminated against,” he said.

Shah, who has worked in health care among native people for 45 years and is the staff physician for Anishnawbe Health Toronto, a community health care centre. He said racism against First Nations people in Toronto’s health-care system is far too common.

---

400 urine-stained library books destroyed in Leamington

Yep, things are much more normal in Canada.

Well I guess there is normal and there is normal. But the thing I want to know is why everything is couched in terms of 'war'. There is a war on this and a war on that. Even Tom's signature quote gets in on the act.

Its more fun Tut are you going to sign of to something that is just a fight, no sense of the dramatic, you see, and after all all the actors among the poli's have to think they are really doing something, so they will have a war and throw resources at a problem. I wonder if they have won their wars
War on Terror,
War on Drugs,
War on Poverty

When your president wants voters to exact "revenge" what do you expect?

I expect a targeted response, not a scattergun approach. Unfortunately your country is the land of the vigilante. Look I know 9/11 was difficult to deal with, who was the enemy, an attack from without is one thing, an attack from within something very different. In those moments as we watched the towers burn we were looking at the start of WWIII. The terrorists had succeeded however briefly. The war goes on, we focus on Afghanistan but the war is a war against jihadistan, against islamists, it is a culture war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When your president wants voters to exact "revenge" what do you expect?

---

I understand that side of the argument. However I am just wondering what Tom's excuse is. But I guess I should ask him.

Tut

Yes Tom why do you want revenge

Quote:

---

Yes Tom why do you want revenge

---

It's the christian thing to do don't you know.

None of us are perfect Karma, that's why we are Christians, but not even you are perfect. You see someone asked me if I was God once and I had to admit I was not

Who would ask you if you are a god? How would that discussion even happen?

I realize none of us are perfect but it isn't very hard to refrain from constantly debasing people in internet forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Who would ask you if you are a god? How would that discussion even happen?

I realize none of us are perfect but it isn't very hard to refrain from constantly debasing people in internet forums.

---

You would like to know how that conversation could happen well God revealed a passage of Scripture to me that says I am one with Him and you see there was this JW and he just didn't get what I was telling him. All his magazine reading had just failed him

My signature is not about revenge. It's about taking a political set back and not laying down and accepting defeat. Why did I use the Grant dialogue ? Because I like it. It's really that simple . You need not read anything else into it than that.

Well Tom you like to quote from republicans but perhaps you should consider the words of Lee, they seem appropriate to the current crisis

Quote:

---

The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.
Robert E. Lee

---

just subsititue anything you like for the words "the war"

I could quote many people . Mao said politics is warfare by other means.

I agree with Lee . The system the founders set up would've had slavery wither on the vine had SCOTUS not made one of it's many horribly wrong decisions in the ' Dred Scott v. Sandford' case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I could quote many people . Mao said politics is warfare by other means.

I agree with Lee . The system the founders set up would've had slavery wither on the vine had SCOTUS not made one of it's many horribly wrong decisions in the ' Dred Scott v. Sandford' case.

---

Tom, you always cite SCOTUS as the villain in the play. I am sure there is a good argument for that position. The problem is that I cannot recall any civilization that has had a successful power sharing arrangement. Let alone a triumvirate. But than again I am a pessimist. A bit like yourself I suspect?

Tut

Tut Tom is optimistic that capitalism will prevail and bail them out of their dilemma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

My signature is not about revenge. It's about taking a political set back and not laying down and accepting defeat. Why did I use the Grant dialogue ? Because I like it. It's really that simple . You need not read anything else into it than that.

---

Should we read anything into a famous quote you cite subsequently? "......politics is warfare by other means" . Perhaps you just like it?


Tut

Specifically Eighty years of compromising (beginning with the Constitutional Convention and continued on in Congress ) went down the drain with the Dred Scott decision. In one fell swoop, the primary tool of compromise, a line by which it was determined which states would enter the Union as slave states, and which would enter as free states, was found to be unconstitutional. It is no coincidence that the Civil War began 3 years later .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Should we read anything into a famous quote you cite subsequently? "......politics is warfare by other means" . Perhaps you just like it?


Tut

---

Read what you wish . Frankly civility and political correctness are over-rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

specifically Eighty years of compromising (beginning with the Constitutional Convention and continued on in Congress ) went down the drain with the Dred Scott decision. In one fell swoop, the primary tool of compromise, a line by which it was determined which states would enter the Union as slave states, and which would enter as free states, was found to be unconstitutional. It is no coincidence that the Civil War began 3 years later .

---

It is very easy to exact hindsight when it comes to historical events. Sounds a lot like you are promoting 'creeping determinism' to me. In other words, we can see past events in a clearer light after said events have taken place.

As far as SCOTUS' bad decisions are concerned I guess from our vantage point we knew it all along.

Perhaps in the same way as the Constitution knew it all along.

Fraught with bad methodology I would have thought.

Tut

Nope ;as I've said before ,SCOTUS undermined the system with the Marbury v Madison decision. So as Jefferson said.. future events were predictable . In so many cases ,their decsion has left significant populations in this country embittered ;chiefly because SCOTUS by-passes the representative process. Too frequently they have made wrong calls in affirming bad law, reversing good law;and most importantly ,imposing remedies that they deem are needed. Nothing granted them that much power.

They're is nothing else for it Tom a new revolution and a new constitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nope

---

Is that a no to my idea that we can't place ourselves in a privileged position when it comes to judging events we are historically connected?

No to the idea that it is bad methodology to judge events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were in the past?

Tom, you more than likely adhering to the fallacy of presentism (yes there really is such a fallacy).
It's the idea that we can supply an accurate analysis of past events by way of present day ideas and perspectives.



Tut

By quoting Jefferson's observation about the Marbury decision I was giving you the perspective of a contemporary of John Marshall's in the era the decision was made. The fact that his predictions were spot on then and now validates his thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

By quoting Jefferson's observation about the Marbury decision I was giving you the perspective of a contemporary of John Marshall's in the era the decision was made. The fact that his predictions were spot on then and now validates his thoughts.

---

What does this have to do with anything? Even I could have made such a prediction for the time and further into the future Three brances of government each assigned and equal role in governance. One branch discovers that it can legislate to increase it's own power and influence.

You are trying to tell me this is a spot on prediction? Give me an instance in the history of Western civilization whereby some governing body hasn't sort to increase it's power and influence in a system that lacks adequacy. You don't need a crystal ball to predict that.

Tut

The Judiciary should be the weakest of the co-equal branches. It neither controls the purse or the enforcement instruments. The fact that they have seized so much power in anti-constitutional . The ant-Federalist 'Brutus' also warned against this possibility and suggested that the Brit system that judicial decisions can be overturned by the legislature was a better system. I won't go that far because our legislature has had some bone head calls too. But perhaps a veto system would've provided a better check against the Judiciary power grab.

The justice who casts the fifth vote is as close to having a king as it gets in the US. If the intention was to have legal experts ensure that the constitution was being correctly interpreted (I admit that I don't know if that was the intention but it should be) it still comes down to an individual or a few making the crucial decisions. Government by the people is a false promise under those circumstances. Maybe the prez, House, and Senate should be allowed to veto decisions if two of the three entities vote or decide to do so.
Or would any such measures turn the present near gridlock into total gridlock? And if the House voted against the supreme court decision while the Senate and Prez accepted it-- does that again leave the people out of the decision inasmuch as some say that the Senate represents the states and not the people?
Let the House make the first stab at constitutionality (isn't that already considered with any bill- if not, it should be) of any proposed bill or current law, and if the bill survives the process, enact it like any other. Give the supremes a small office in the Capitol and let them give their advice by testifying upfront instead of second-guessing on the back end. Would help the budget too. Elect the justices for 6 years max and let the people make the decisions like they are supposed to.
I know-- try amending the constitution for all or any of the above.

Your justices are appointed for a term which cannot be terminated because the government has changed. This is important to preserve their independence and recognises that the handling of cases takes time and should not be interrupted by the political cycle. Having judges elected politicises the office.

The idea that they have usurped power is because they have made unpopular decisions, but they operate within constrained paramaters, whether a law or an act is constitutional, they do not write the laws.

The House and the Senate can vote against a Supreme Court decision by enacting a law and that law can be referred to the court and they can do it by having a referendum to amend the constitution.

The structure was set up for a reason, to check the power of each branch of government and avoid the possibility of a king arising. Events have moved a long way in two hundred years and those who draft and propose laws have pushed the boundries and every now and again someone must push back. Ultimately the court is guardian of liberty when the political process fails in this regard