Search results

Turns out DePape was in the U.S. illegally. We need to BUILD A WALL! from Vancouver to Gaspe to keep those snowback rapists and murderers out! The Canadians will pay for it!

Some places do, indeed do AA for women. AA generally is kind of an odd thing, because it's mostly done by private actors (the big exception being state universities). You usually only hear about it when it's a state university or some whiny White guy taking his self-pity way too far.

Yep, or as I put it sometimes, AA is based on the notion that Will Smith's or LeBron James's or Barack Obama's kids are oppressed and deserving of compensatory privilege, and the Coal Miner's Daughter or foreclosed farmer's son is privileged and not deserving of compensatory privilege. As to...

Nah, just a sad little person who can't stand the idea that Daddy's not taking care of him.

That would be great if we didn't have the concept of "race" written into the Constitution. Are you denying that the United States and its constituent states engaged in legal, mandatory, official separation of people by "race?" Is that what you're going with?

Undoubtedly some shady international cabal dedicated to imposing un-Canadian values on the world.

No, the big issue is whether or not you, or anybody else, gets to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her body and health. The rest is detail. I'm happy to explain it, but let's keep our eye on the puck here. If enough people want something bad enough, they can make it happen. As I...

Yep. The argument is over the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in pertinent part One side of the debate is of the opinion that this means only that a state can deprive people of life/lib/property only by "due process," either a judicial proceeding or a law duly...

There's also Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird (the contraceptive cases), which Thomas has already said he would vote to overrule if they came before the Court.

It goes beyond that. If the Extreme Court overturns Lawrence v. Texas, states will once again be able to make homosexual sex a crime. And if they go after Loving v. Virginia, they can bring back laws forbidding interracial marriage.

We'll see if that attitude, enshrined in Obergefell v. Hodges in the U.S., survives the current Extreme Court.

The basic reason it's all bullshit. If everything is predetermined and everything is Gawd's will, we might as well do whatever we please, because it's Gawd's will.

God can worship god as much as he likes, for all I care.

Yep, that explains it. Thx.

Precisely. So why the breathless revelation of the conundrum they already knew the answer to?

OK, that ain't narrowing it down much. . .

Boy howdy. Now THERE's a stop-the-presses, extra-read-all-about-it headline!

Yeah, I got it. It was just so dull and faux-deep that I decided to look for something else. I'm pretty sure, at least in the U.S., and I can't imagine it's any different in Canada, there are several difficulties with policing FNs, and racism, insofar as it's a factor at all, comes in behind...

Cool. Excellent gig. Charles will have the task of shaping the monarchy and its presentation in the 21st.

She was the baby's paternal grandmother. Duh.