gowlerk

Ohhhh..... gonna touch someone's nerves with that. I think that theory revolves around the fact that the only people who even use the term "woke" use it as a pejorative. Not that I would call anyone a "fuckhead", that would be a potential PA. No, I'm not gonna ask who fits that pair of shoes. Not me, not gonna go there. Wouldn't be prudent.

After all this blathering about this laptop story that has so many vague accusations I finally took the time to read what that known facts are. It comes down to this. The laptop appears to have a reasonably good chance of actually being Hunter's at one time. But not for certain. Two emails on it are the focus of all this talk. One thanks Hunter for giving an "opportunity to meet his father". The person in question could possible have been introduce to Joe when Joe briefly stopped into a formal dinner to say hello to an old friend and contact. Other than that there is absolutely no evidence of any meeting with Joe. None. Not while in office or afterward. None. The other one concerns some kind of deal that Hunter appears to be setting up with a Chinese company where it seems that one of the principles was offering a share position to Joe. It is followed by another that seems to report that Joe responded with "an emphatic no". Joe was not an office holder at the time of these emails. This is the complete thing as far as I can tell. The way I see it there is so little here that most likely in my mind the HD did belong to Hunter at one time. Simply because if someone was going to go through the trouble of faking evidence they would have faked something scandal worthy. Which none of this is. While it does suggest that Hunter was trading on his family connection, he is not and has never been a politician or in public service and therefore has done nothing illegal. And Joe has handled himself in a manner that does not bring any dishonour at all. The only story here is how the story was handled. And there was good reason for that.

"Lefty standards" are not as set in stone as you think they are. Like human sexuality and gender there is fluidity in the views of those who would allow for more acceptance and latitude to be given to those who feel they don't fit into the roles that are traditional. In the battle to gain more rights for more people (the very heart of what liberalism is) it is difficult to give up any ground to conservatives because many of them want to suppress those freedoms. But I can certainly say for myself that I view having elite female athletes having to compete against persons that are partially or mostly male with the strength advantages that delivers is unfair. The problem is that it also unfair to deny people their right to choose their identity. Both sides need to acknowledge that there is a genuine conflict here.

There are no separate women's rights. Women are people and they have the rights of people. There is no legal definition of female, so why was the soon to be Justice asked this question? Not to find out her views, but to grandstand at a Senate committee hearing with wide media coverage. She didn't bite. That's all, nothing more.

It is not just in your country. It is everywhere. When they come out into the light at least we can see who they are.

They felt safe to come out of their baskets.

Every nation rallies around the leader in a time of war. That's the main reason Bush beat Kerry.

Yeah, that is a quaint tradition followed in some parts of the world.

No mercy for boats. They all end up either at the bottom or broken for scrap anyway. They are just money pits like aircraft.

UTC-05:00 where I am. Probably UTC -07:00 where Rob is. There are a lot of time zones in Canada.

You can do it. I believe in you.

Joe, it's one thing to answer him. But did you have to quote his post to do it?

This is the first step to an escalation that may drag more nations into the fray. Puking and company have already said they might use WMD if they feel Russia is under threat.

Can't I troll a little here?

I can hardly wait for her to become POTUS.

Yes

How much weapon development do you expect to take place in Canada? A nation with a smaller population than Ukraine. We are a development partner with Boeing and other aerospace companies. But we need to specialize.

You may be misunderstanding how the defence industry works. When they sell weapons to other nations they make a profit. And that is how more weapon development is paid for.

It may be more current, but it is also a page created by NATO rather that an outside organization.

The most important and useful weapons NATO nations have supplied to Ukraine have been anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile type weapons. Canada has supplied some of these from stock I believe, but we do not develop and or manufacture either as far as I know. So no would be the answer to what I believe you are asking. Am I good with that? I don't see that as a relevant question because it describes a situation that couldn't exist. Canada buys its weapons from mostly the US.

Canada does not have homeland developed weapons that I am aware of. We probably have companies and especially subsidiaries of larger companies that make weapons. What is your point?

I am not grasping the meaning of this part. Are you asking about Canadian invented weapons?

Everybody does what they can to reduce their taxes without risking jail time. Governments love straight employees because they are addicted to tax withheld at source.

The available analysis has not caught up with current events. This is centred around the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Crimea. It still holds considerable relevance and it largely supports your position. It also points out some of the political barriers standing in the way of increase defense spending.

This may help you come to terms with your disappointment. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139 Although the 2 percent pledge is not a legally binding commitment by NATO’s member states, its inclusion in the declaration was widely perceived as a meaningful, even historic step. The goal had been present in the debate over NATO’s future and burden sharing at least since the alliance’s summit in Riga in 2006. A month before that summit, Victoria Nuland, then the U.S. ambassador to NATO, called the 2 percent metric the “unofficial floor” on defense spending in NATO.2 But never had all governments of NATO’s 28 nations officially embraced it at the highest possible political level—a summit declaration. In light of the heightened attention to security since the start of the Ukraine crisis, the 2 percent issue has assumed increased political relevance. But is the 2 percent metric useful? And can it be fulfilled? What is its real meaning? The answers to those questions are of great significance for the debate on the future of the transatlantic alliance.