Search results

Glad you're back. I like your note. It stayed for five years for a reason.

It's the gift that keeps on giving!

It's CRT, I tells ya! CRT!

Seven. Lisa Marie Presley.

Um. . . you gotta read the article. HOW DO THE TWO CASES DIFFER? Legal experts say there are stark contrasts between the two cases. In Trump's case, the National Archives tried for more than a year after Trump left office to retrieve all of the records he retained, without success. When Trump...

What, no Incendiary Devices? I think a lot of young persons with chromosomes would love being a member of the "Firebombs."

Well, when ya brag about killing people, there's gonna be some pushback.

Sorry, Serryah, but I have to side with the Conjobs on this one. For better or for worse, we leave treatment options up to the doctor/therapist/counsellor/whatever you want to call them precisely because it's an art, not a science. We trust, having no choice, that the practitioner will do...

Nope. Views are prejudice. Actions are discrimination. No, yes. Your bills are stupid and overbroad. As a lawyer, I approve! Call 'em the Lawyers' Full Employment Acts of 2023.

We forbid discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, sexuality. . . or competence. Kidding. My proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution would read "(1) Discrimination on the basis of any factor irrelevant or only minimally relevant to the area in...

Leads to the question. . . is "compensatory discrimination" the right answer for past discrimination (which never happened, of course)? My answer is no, it's not worth giving the supremacists the fodder for their terrified whining. Rather, strict and criminal enforcement of discrimination...

You do with the most dangerous drug of all, so why not? Interesting that you see not making something a crime as "encouraging" it.

I was making a funny. Or maybe a not-so-funny. The underlying meaning was that you produced ample reason why people flaunting their religiosity rubs you the wrong way.

Same people who do it now. You think there'll be an explosion of hard drug use? Hasn't been the case in countries that have decriminalized or legalized 'em. Maybe Canadians're just stupider, on average.

Can be. You think the government has the just authority to tell you what you can and can't put into your body? Or do you just want users dying from overdoses and fentanyl-laced street drugs?

Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?

When they try to write their fairy tale into the civil laws.

How's that? You think hard drugs are something new?

Has the Senate ever really done much? Our Senate has a real role in legislation, the British House of Lords has maybe one dull tooth left. Where would you put the Canadian Senate on that scale?

There was probably more to it.