Mark H.

I prefer my whiskey on the rocks. Rye however, I prefer with coke or yukon jack (now there's a mix that sneaks up on you). If I'm going to add mix to an expensive whiskey, I really see no point in drinking it.

Meh - Forty Creek > Crown Royal

The middle east has hated us for way longer than 100 years. Islam has been trying to eradicate Christianity since it's inception 1400 years ago. And there has been an ethic cleansing of christians going on there for over a hundred years. In the early 20th century 20% of the population of the middle east was Christian. ....now it's 5% and quickly falling. Cause it's not like Christianity hasn't tried to eradicate other religions throughout history. I'd say Christians are all suckers. Suckers as in letting refugees in that among them would kill our loved ones in a second. I'm torn between that and thinking 'what if my family were on the run and had no where to go'? I think that no matter which side we find ourselves on i,n this thread, we're all guilty of too much black and white either/or thinking. There will be not be a perfect solution. Screen refugees thoroughly and you're still taking a risk. Which is precisely what ISIS wants you to be afraid of. Or, shut out all the refugees and try to reconcile your conscience to their suffering by telling ourselves that 'at least our families are alive.' There no easy answers, but one thing is certain: the truth, as always, is somewhere in the murky middle.

I havent seen if this has been changed in the last couple of days but from BBC: Ahmad al-Mohammad, from Idlib in Syria, has been named as one of the attackers involved in Friday's terror attacks in Paris. His was the name on a Syrian passport found with the remains of one of the attackers, though the man's identity has not yet been verified. It is believed he entered mainland Europe after arriving by boat on the Greek island of Leros, like many refugees fleeing Syria's civil war. Additionally, other terrorists have entered countries as refugees, perhaps most infamously the Boston Marathon bombers. I'll be honest, as much as I think Trudeau's plan is politically motivated based on how it looks, and I think prudence requires a step back, I am hesitant when I see so many US states determined to ban refugees. I dont want to embrace a knee-jerk reaction. In a perfect world, or even a normal world, we should do our part to help people. However, its not a perfect or normal world. ISIS has said they will hide operatives among refugees. If it was any other group and any other event, we wouldnt hesitate but to choose more security. If Trudeau goes ahead with his plan and someone commits a terrorist attack in Canada or the US (entering by means of Canada) who was among these refugees, what would Trudeau say then? When someone says how they will attack you, you dont shrug and say "odds are long". How many Arab nations are taking in refugees? I think some people get this impression that the entire world is bringing in tens of thousands of refugees and us hateful Canadians are wanting to *gasp* fully vet any before we bring them in, and its not true. Never mind the economic and social issues of bringing in so many. Its a complicated issue. I'd love to help as many people as possible and accept that they are all good people with no ill intentions. But if I had to take responsibility for their actions, I couldnt do it. 1. The person blew him/her self up - but the passport was still in good condition 2. The desire of US governors to ban refugees - is also politically motivated 3. The refugees who will come to Canada have been in UN refugee camps for a few years 4. How many countries are taking in refugees? I would counter that with some other questions - which are merely food for thought a) How many countries took in Jewish refugees during the Holocaust? Very few b ) Did people / countries take a risk when they helped Jewish refugees? Absolutely c) Was it a greater risk than taking in the current refugees? It's hard to argue otherwise I think the other question you should be asking is how many rich Arab countries are taking in refugees? Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar & Kuwat? The answer is zero. Yet, we are supposed to bring in an influx of 25,000 in a month? Why are these countries doing nothing? I'm guessing these countries don't take in very many refugees - from anywhere. Canada takes in 10 000 refugees every year. I would bet every single year we could have found a country that wasn't taking any.

I have no idea what Harper's timeline would have been. Measured approaches can run the gamut. Just another example of how this has become a political issue. I'll say it again - unfortunate

I think Harper would have brought those refugees in as well. My understanding is that much of the vetting process has been done - in the refugee camps. It's unfortunate that this has become a political issue. According to MCC (friends recently hosted one of their info sessions) there are other refugees who need our help as well. But it's the Syrian crisis that is getting all the media attention. Also unfortunate.

I havent seen if this has been changed in the last couple of days but from BBC: Ahmad al-Mohammad, from Idlib in Syria, has been named as one of the attackers involved in Friday's terror attacks in Paris. His was the name on a Syrian passport found with the remains of one of the attackers, though the man's identity has not yet been verified. It is believed he entered mainland Europe after arriving by boat on the Greek island of Leros, like many refugees fleeing Syria's civil war. Additionally, other terrorists have entered countries as refugees, perhaps most infamously the Boston Marathon bombers. I'll be honest, as much as I think Trudeau's plan is politically motivated based on how it looks, and I think prudence requires a step back, I am hesitant when I see so many US states determined to ban refugees. I dont want to embrace a knee-jerk reaction. In a perfect world, or even a normal world, we should do our part to help people. However, its not a perfect or normal world. ISIS has said they will hide operatives among refugees. If it was any other group and any other event, we wouldnt hesitate but to choose more security. If Trudeau goes ahead with his plan and someone commits a terrorist attack in Canada or the US (entering by means of Canada) who was among these refugees, what would Trudeau say then? When someone says how they will attack you, you dont shrug and say "odds are long". How many Arab nations are taking in refugees? I think some people get this impression that the entire world is bringing in tens of thousands of refugees and us hateful Canadians are wanting to *gasp* fully vet any before we bring them in, and its not true. Never mind the economic and social issues of bringing in so many. Its a complicated issue. I'd love to help as many people as possible and accept that they are all good people with no ill intentions. But if I had to take responsibility for their actions, I couldnt do it. 1. The person blew him/her self up - but the passport was still in good condition 2. The desire of US governors to ban refugees - is also politically motivated 3. The refugees who will come to Canada have been in UN refugee camps for a few years 4. How many countries are taking in refugees? I would counter that with some other questions - which are merely food for thought a) How many countries took in Jewish refugees during the Holocaust? Very few b ) Did people / countries take a risk when they helped Jewish refugees? Absolutely c) Was it a greater risk than taking in the current refugees? It's hard to argue otherwise

Do they have a choice? Does anyone?

France is accepting 30 000 refugees

The longer I'm away, the more I'm reminded how much I love it, and how much I need to defend it. The funny thing is, I've never lived in Winnipeg, and as a Rural Manitoban, I'm not always a fan of it, but living in AB, I find myself defending Winnipeg all the time. But yeah, absolutely, the longer I'm away, the more I realize I'm #Manitoban4Life. Just a matter of time before I find a job to get me home full time. Rural MB is the best kept secret in Canada - I like it that way

Sorry Mark, but I'm not buying this apologist argument. As I said in a previous post, this is just too easy. Why aren't the Vietnamese self-detonating and murdering people in cold blood in restaurants and theaters in Paris right now? They have every reason to hate the French. They were mistreated by "our" countries (I'm not sure who you are lumping into this catch-all) including France and the USA, for well over 100 years. Over a million of their citizens were murdered. And yet, the Vietnamese are peaceful and are moving on with their lives. This isn't about mistreatment (or at least, that's just a small factor) of the Middle East (once again, not sure who you are lumping in to that category). It's about a religion that seems to be unable to co-exist with anyone else in many parts of the world. Try going to parts of Myanmar. Guess which parts you can't travel in. Try going to the Philippines. Guess which area you can't travel in. Were the people of Mindanao in the Philippines "mistreated" by "our" countries? Of course not. Yet they are kidnapping and beheading "infidels" too. I just don't buy it Mark. Okay. Vietnam sucked it up, China sucked it up, therefore the Middle East should suck it up too. I'm oversimplifying, but that is essentially what you're saying.

Too many journalists ignore the West's role in all of this. Our countries have spent the past century mistreating the Middle East. When we weren't doing that, we were supplying them with weapons. If we are to believe the media avoids mentioning Muslims in their news stories because it's not politically correct, then we should believe a thousand times more that our own governments carry a good share of the blame.

So what's the difference between their views on homosexuality and the "Christian right", who are already embedded in N.A.??? Neither group is stupid enough to openly attack gays. Thank you. That's precisely my point.

May the greenhouse be with you

That's a matter of perspective. Most European countries wouldn't consider the end of 2015 to be a short timeline. To them the issue the issue is here. Now. There was an article a couple of weeks ago about a homosexual couple in Germany who took in a group of Muslim refugees. I would post it here, but it's written in German.

To the point of giving them the death penalty??? Really? Because that's what happens to men who get accused of homosexuality in Middle Eastern countries run by Islamic theocracies. You really aren't comparing apples with apples here. I know. And India has the death penalty for impaired driving. What do think the screening process for beliefs regarding homosexuality should look like?

You implied that Muslim beliefs regarding homosexuality should be considered in the refugee screening process - did you not?

There's nothing unusual about that. We all know there are plenty North Americans who don't agree with homosexuality. Amish don't agree with divorce - doesn't mean they shouldn't be Canadian citizens?

Exactly what ISIS wants them to do.

a) If anything happens in Canada, it will not be something that could have been prevented by tighter security checks on refugees. Have tighter screening process by all means, but if ISIS wants to wreak havoc, they will wreak havoc This is the end result of mistreating the middle east. This kind of radicalism can and has come from other religions. I need not point you any further than than Christianity after Constantine combined church and state. c) But hey - we could always send some more armoured vehicles to the Saudis - or provide the Taliban with more weapons to wreak havoc in Afghanistan.

OTTAWA - With Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau preparing to announce a cabinet that is 50% women, researchers have discovered a sharp 5000% increase in the number of men who suddenly have strong opinions about how cabinet appointments should be a “meritocracy.” Across the nation statisticians are at a loss to explain a recent and drastic jump in the number of men who have spontaneously developed hard opinions about the qualifications of Federal Cabinet Ministers. “This is affirmative action, and even though it has been statistically shown to improve working conditions over time, I don’t like it,” said longtime man Thomas Fielding. “Someone’s genitals don’t make them qualified for a job. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my job as the manager of a pro sports team.” Several noted political scientists agree that Trudeau’s female quota is a controversial move. “I suddenly and inexplicably find myself very concerned about this issue,” added Dr. William Harkin of the University of Calgary, also a lifelong male. “Unlike Trudeau, Prime Minister Harper only chose the most qualified people for his cabinet posts, like a climate change denier [Peter Kent] as his Minister of the Environment. Or his numerous Ministers of Defense who never once held military positions.” He concluded, “I mean, Jason Kenney alone was Minister of Immigration before being shuffled to Multiculturalism, then Social Development, and then finally National Defense - clearly because he was the most qualified person in the entire country on all those four completely unrelated files.” Several prominent media figures have also joined in the backlash against Trudeau’s gender parity cabinet. “I think this should be a strict meritocracy, an opinion I have held for several hours now” opined Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of The Walrus and lifetime member of the dude team. “Women should be expected to earn their positions the same way men do - take for example my mother Barbara Kay. Despite being a woman she earned her column at the National Post through hard work, talent, and having a son who was on the editorial board at the time. Like I said, meritocracy.” Reached for comment, Canada’s researchers said, “We’re just happy we can report on this data trend without worrying about getting the hose again.” --An earlier version of this article mistakenly suggested Jonathan Kay was the comments page editor for the National Post at the time his mother was hired. The Beaverton regrets this error, apologizes to both Jonathan and Barbara Kay and would like to add that the National Post is hot garbage. http://www.thebeaverton.com/

He did throw mostly underneath in the second half - looked like Richie Hall changed up the coverage

Change? How about starting the season 2 - 3 weeks earlier?

Firing MB is overrated. Unless the next guy has a better OL and receivers who can consistently stretch the field, expect similar results

Our receiving corps lacks speed as a unit. Just look at some of the completions Burris made. Other than the Adam reception, how often were we successful throwing downfield?