rangerx

No argument there. Trudeau is committed to petroleum reduction although selling tar sand to China seems like an questionable approach to the issue. We'll see how that adds up next election. I'm 50/50 on the issue at present, but that's a far cry better than Harper, who was a 100% asshole-in-the-tank for his cronies, despite the rest of us. There's three sides to every story. Right, wrong and reality. In reality, as hewers of wood and drawers of water we all share in problem. The right wing denies a problem because they're motivated to pollute with immunity. Carte blanche. Reckless abandon. Leaving communities holding the bag. Indifferent voters have short memories, but those who've been poisoned out of their homes have elephantine recollection. I seriously doubt America will prosper with new Love Canals springing up in the absence of EPA regulations. American steel leaks as much as any other when it comes to pipelines, maybe worse if Trump continues his propensity to stiff or low ball contractors. The right wing also draws upon a fallacy that anyone who opposes fossil fuel development is a hypocrite for driving a car or using plastic. Nobody suggested using petroleum must end, insomuch as being reduced where practical. All we need to do is look at a vast array of automobiles, locomotives and aircraft to know that fuel efficiency is a high priority among industry and residents. No matter what Trump says or does, climate change is an issue and it always will be. A vast swath of Americans don't buy into Trump's nonsense and are subjected to deal with it daily, but the rest of the world has no obligation to accept any of it. In fact, he's making his own blithering easier to dismiss as time goes by. Like Trump's idiotic wall policy, burning more coal is not a magic bullet to fix anything other than scaring up votes. The good citizens of Flint will not feel better about there water situation if the rest of the country ends up equally or more polluted either. I made a personal choice years ago to reduce my carbon footprint. Those who do not have no reason to deride those who do, for any reason.

I'm not sure how one's hair or the number of selfies taken has anything to do with climate change other than frame the narrative into something it's not. Harper was a climate denier. He snubbed scientists and burned the DFO libraries without digitization of more than 85%, including the works of some of my professors who never once mentioned the word climate in their studies. Trudeau upholds Canada's participation in the Paris accord. Harper did not. Trudeau imposed a tanker ban on the north coast. Harper wanted to navigate tankers through that waterway to Kitimat, in both directions. Heavy oil west, toxic dilution chemicals east. Harper was pro-Northern Gateway and was chastised by the court for not consulting with communities affected. Trudeau ended the project. No sir, Harper and Trudeau are not anything alike. Trudeau has compromised by providing permits to Kinder Morgan for the twinning of their pipeline. While that may have some critics aghast, he actually found common ground by allowing some of both issues to prevail. That's not something Harper ever did. Now, if you want to discuss the issues of moving diluted bitumen to China through the Port of Vancouver as something Trudeau having in common with Harper then perhaps we'll agree it's hypocritical on a specific issue... tar sand. Nasty stuff. Do you think for one second Harper would change the MoE to Environment and Climate Change?

I don't or won't miss you one iota. I'm merely debunking comments and agreeing with DrmDoc as to your skirting around pointed questions. That said, I'll convey my wishes to you and your family for a safe and pleasant vacation. That and the faint hope you might actually get over yourself.

I tried using the same language so they'd understand and respond accordingly, but no. No contribution to the discussion insomuch as trolling it.

I recall this from here. Quote: Should a candidate who put her personal convenience ahead of national security be elected president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had her supporters within her party put their thumb on the scale in order to win her party's nomination be elected president? Should a candidate who won't disclose her speeches to banks and wall street be elected president? What did she tell them that she now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a candidate who tried to send an innocent person to prison, so she could provide a crony job to her political financial supporters be elected president? Should a candidate who promised to isolate herself from a charitable foundation her family controls, but then used her personal aides and agents to maintain contact with that charitable foundation, and then gave special access to foundation donors to lobby the state department be elected president? Then this little gem from here: Quote: I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified. So Mr.waitforufo, by your logic I'll ask you these questions.... Should a president who put his personal convenience ahead of national security remain president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had his supporters within his party put their thumb on the scale in order to win his party's nomination remain president? Should a candidate who won't disclose his tax returns, won't divest himself of his business assets and wall street be elected president? What did he tell Pence or Flynn that he now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a president who tries to send an innocent person to prison, so he could provide a crony job to his political financial supporters remain president? Should a president who promised to isolate himself from a corporation his family controls, but then used his personal aides and agents to maintain contact with a Russian ambassador, and then gave special access to campaign donors to the executive branch be allowed to remain president? Do you believe there is sufficient evidence in both his past and present to convince any thinking person that Donald Trump is not truthful. His lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security, defending American soil (Russia), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individuals (intelligence community). Do you not care if he is the "least qualified", but simply care if he is qualified or not? Do you think he is not truthful and therefore not qualified?

When did I say anything about Trump? Seeing how you mentioned him, his National Security advisor stepped down yesterday for being a liar and last week had his ass handed to him for issuing an unconstitutional executive order. Sounds like checked and balanced to me, in other words... slowed down. Better yet, none of those actions had anything to do with me or my opinion. Call it what you like, but alternate facts don't impress me much. It says more about the person saying them than those listening.

It's more like polluting the swamp.

By that logic, only the third rate burglars of the Watergate Hotel should be imprisoned and Nixon should have never been impeached or resigned? I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know a call from Flynn to a high level Russian ambassador was not to talk about the weather and exchange recipes. You're skirting a serious national security issue to defend a Republican by claiming no authorization exists, when you clearly have no idea, one way or the other. This is why there are investigations, hearings and legal procedures. Dismissal has no bearing on anything other than partisan politics. Period.

Apparently the law of the land means nothing to you... (except the 2nd Amendment, of course) The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. What part of "intercepted phone conversations" means nothing to you? It doesn't even matter what was said, the mere fact it happened is a crime in itself. If a democrat did that, I'm sure you'd have your own thread with long winded screeds of your interpretation of evil liberalism and totalitarian regimes beating you down. Calling for prison, impeachment and banishment to Nod. But a Republican did that, so no big deal, right?

In modern terms, Michael J. Flynn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn%27s_taxonomy New descriptions are usually prefixed by the Latin genus suffixed by the region, author or both. Occasionally, a broad description is appended. For example Red Wolf is Canis lupus rufus. I'm not fluent in Latin, but perhaps others will comment or correct. For example, suffixes such as ica, us or is are used with regions, while ii with author names. The suffix oida describes shell bearing orders.

Carl Linnaeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus Conrad Gessner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Gessner

My brain hurts, and I'm not even American. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rumor Sarah Palin becoming ambassador to Canada. How fucked up is that? It's bad enough Americans have to deal with batshit crazy, but now they impose it on us.

The 9th circuit rejected the Justice department appeal. The injunction restraining the travel ban remains in force. https://twitter.com/CNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

If you want to learn how to ruthlessly stiff others by reneging on contractual obligations because you have them over a barrel, then this book is for you. It's not for me though, because my word is my bond.

Fly-by-wire has greatly prevented pilot error on modern aircraft. Countless lives have been saved as a result.

By charging Trump with contempt of court. He's not above the rule of law. Trump fired the AG. In retrospect she was wrongfully dismissed, but I'm inclined to think stacking the office of AG to challenge the rule of law makes no difference. What it does do though, is show the length the current administration will go to cram their agenda down everyone's throats at any cost. Even if it means failure... which they'll never accept, but to blame liberalism, activist judges or whatever alternate facts d'jour they cook up.

Indeed they have. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317884-washington-state-judge-halts-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

Even the first cave man using a stick to pry a rock applied scientific principles to objectively forward a task. Anyone unwilling to accept those tenets still lives under that rock.

I could not agree more. The extremes of light and dark may be unconscionable to their followers, but not ethical.

Thank you. Ethics often involve overlapping issues. I asked the question because republicans on one hand deride government involvement into the personal lives of citizens, but on the other hand deride Roe v Wade, essentially giving the government authority over women's health issues and forcing them to be incubators for the state. Likewise VP Pense has been a proponent of burials for fetuses, but upholds his president's executive order dig up graves.

I'll further these questions by asking... if it's unethical to abort a fetus and force a burial then is it ethical to unearth the burial grounds of indigenous people to build a pipeline?

Mr. waitforufo claims to be a staunch constitutionalist, especially where the 2nd Amendment is applied. Given the outspoken disregard for the 1st (not to mention interspersed trolling) I'd suggest credulity outstrips credibility on any issue.

Already known to be otherwise? Unlike the usage of alternate facts, your assertion will require citation to have any credence in this discussion.

The same can be said about your pre-election posts. The post election trolling hasn't changed much either.

Where I come from, we call that "all talk and no action" Voter apathy is a political tool often exploited by the winner of any given election. I've always been of the position that if you don't vote don't complain. I'd suspect most of the protesters voted, hence don't buy into the narrative they didn't. Voting for the losing side does not invalidate one's issues or concerns. It only minimizes them somewhat compared to other priorities or mandates. You're a Canadian. Just because a liberal became PM in the last cycle doesn't strip you of your beliefs, nor your right to dissent. Am I right?