Oh don’t worry, he’s not going to pay them.

2nd amendment is the right to bear arms.

IMO an important fact is the intruder was charged with possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

That raises the threshold of reasonable force quite a bit in my eyes, including “life threatening injuries”

Now he shouldn’t keep beating him when he’s down and out but I’m sympathetic to the invadee so far.

That’s what judges are for, I’m curious how it comes out.

You’re funding insurance companies. They don’t like car theft because it means they have to pay out more claims.

Because Trump can’t stay on one subject for more than about 30 seconds. He was probably rambling while Putin nodded along.

They’re right that the ONA is problematic. However, I’d say a leader that openly threatens the press is worse.

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory has a good dive on how they’ve squared that circle.

There’s some who see the threat to Christianity as being so high they must make a deal with the devil to save it.

Some say God works through flaws men.

Some think it’s all lies spread by enemies of Christianity.

They’ve also all got an idolatrous view of the faith where America and the flag are synonymous with Christianity.

Section seven is subject to it.

It’s mainly stuff related to elections that can’t be overruled since the remedy to misusing it is supposed to come at the ballot box.

Doug is worse IMO. Rob had his demons but he at least wanted to help, even if he wasn’t effective. Doug is all about getting power and helping his donors.

They had no choice but to play nice with them.

They could have stood up for their principles. But they didn’t, so they voted for strike breaking instead.

“Oh but then the Conservatives would win!”

Yes, and they’d have an effective fundraising foil instead of being seen as the little brother to the LPC. They chose to win the battle and lose the war.

Give’em a majority and see what happens.

They’ve done nothing to earn it, nor given me any confidence they’d know what to do with one.

if we follow the argument to its natural conclusion there should be no car lanes at all.

That’s not the argument the decision makes. The law ordered the removal of bike lanes to improve traffic. Then they could not show that removing the bike lanes would improve traffic. So they’re taking an action that would endanger members of the public for no benefit.

If they could justify it then it could be saved under the reasonableness clause but they can’t.

No, because the problem with the act was where it removed lanes already built, and the only justification provided had no evidence to support it.

The government can violate your section 7 rights, under section 1. This failed that test by being arbitrary.

We are talking about a criminal trial, aren’t we? The express purpose is finding the guilt of the accused.

These are corner stores in a dense city, not a Costco in the middle of a subdivision. No one is driving to these stores.

It would be hilarious if he lost but he probably won’t.

I remember voting against Ignatiaff years ago when he got parachuted into my riding.

Tecumseth has, and Ottawa hasn’t yet but they’re making all the right noises, including calling deregulation “really far left” (as a bad thing)

Can we? Yes. Will we? If the way cities have been turning down federal money for relaxing regulations is a sign, then no we won’t.

Lol give your balls a tug there bud

Mod is asking if an American show about an American politician is relevant to Canada

No, we shouldn’t. More voting isn’t necessarily better. It’s similar to the arguments people make for mandatory voting, which is also a bad idea.

We don’t need more noise in the voting process.

If anything I’d want to restrict the franchise to people with a certain level of knowledge but I don’t think it’s possible to do that in a just way.

It’s a post open for comment. In what world is that unsolicited?

Lighten up