sweep the leg

how much milk do you drink? Realistically, unless you are a baby you shouldnt be drinking any milk. And even then it should be human milk. Dont get me wrong, I love some milk when I have some warm cookies to dip in them or cereal. But humans drinking milk is silly (and I say that as a reformed milk addict). lol at trying to re-ignite the milk debate.

LaPolice was coming off a Grey Cup appearance when he signed his extension. The scenario's are pretty different.

Wheeler with Ladd & Little in this mornings line rushes. Petan on the 4th line with Copp & Thorburn.

I'd sit him for the next game. Let him think about how it feels to watch somebody do his job. I definitely wouldn't cut him though. There's a lot of talent there if he can get his head straight.

Arguably the worst analogy ever made.

All good points. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this. I'll step aside from this argument now.

I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules.

They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. which is your opinion It's the court's opinion. The law violated the Citizenship Act, which is closely related to the Human Rights Act.

Yes, they do get accommodated for passport photos and airport lineups. Also, any Muslim woman who follows her religion closely enough to wear a niqab won't be hanging out in beverage rooms. You've missed the main point of this conversation. The Conservatives have already tried to make this law, and had it struck down in court and again in appeal. Soon they'll lose at the Supreme Court. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights.

So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong. If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong. You can think everything is wrong if you're so inclined. TUP's pronouncement of it as fact that it's correct was inaccurate. If the Liberals win the election and attempt to legalize pot, only to be rejected in court and again in appeal, then yes, they'll be wrong about being able to legalize it.

I liked his comment, so I'm smart too, right?

If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/theres-a-simple-solution-to-niqabs-and-oath-swearing-but-harper-wont-allow-it/article26611044/ "Women like Zunera Ishaq needn’t feel obliged to wear their veils while swearing the citizenship oath. Religious freedoms can be respected by simply allowing them to take the oath in a room where no men are present. In that case, exposing their faces would not conflict with their religious values. This is what the law calls a “reasonable accommodation,” a gesture that harms no one but allows affected individuals to respect their beliefs. Ms. Ishaq has shown flexibility, removing her veil for identification purposes, her driver’s licence photo and at airport security. But the Tories would have the country in an uproar because Ms. Ishaq drew the line at exposing her face yet again in a room full of male strangers when there is no practical reason to require it."

What should he do? Congress wouldn't even pass a ban on assault weapons. Why does anybody need an assault rifle? I read a great line on twitter: "In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear. To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again.

John Scott is over-rated. He's huge and uses that to his advantage very well but he's not a great fighter. At the end of the 2013-14 season, he got tuned by a rookie in his 1st (regular season) fight. https://youtu.be/ao8qZ3huAdk The overall best fighter is hard to gauge these days since the enforcers either don't play much or get the chance to go against each other. Deryk Engelland dominated most of his fights in 2014-15 and Brian McGrattan was the man in 2013-14 but barely played last year. Peluso is definitely top 5 (imo) though. Scott wins almost all of his fights, most of them decisively. He doesn't have to be a great technical fighter when he's that big. Nobody wins every fight though. He got the best of Engelland a couple seasons ago. I don't like him though, as he's the worst of what fighting is in hockey. He can't play and acts lke a bully, going after non-fighters. I was a big fan of Engelland when he was a Pen. Koed Orr as a rookie.

Raffl has fought before, but he's not in the same class as Peluso. Other than maybe John Scott, I'm not sure there's a better fighter in the league. Peluso knows his job. I'm sure his thought process at the time was that nobody on his team will have to fight while he's on the ice. I don't believe that in the heat of the moment he was thinking about Raffl taking his job.

Speaking of democracy & the Wheatboard, didn't the Conservatives change the law so farmers didn't get a vote on the change? Or am I "misremembering" that? I can't find a story about it, but I seem to remember it being a thing.

Remember that line when you're stomping your feet about a coalition government.

This is a very nuanced breakdown of the Iran deal. Yes, almost as nuanced as this crap: I agree that you're both ridiculous at times.

This is a very nuanced breakdown of the Iran deal.

Is this "the many" you're referring to? In a September 2011 plebiscite (referendum) conducted by Meyers Norris Penny, 62% of CWB farmers voted that they wanted to keep the wheat board and its Single Desk power. A response only a politician could love.

I'm in 50th place overall! I have a real chance to win a free flight to Winnipeg for the Grey Cup.

If he has to buy it, his cheque book would be more useful. Stupid Americans...

That doesn't sound right. Is this really a thing?

I think you're misusing the term high end if you think either of those teams have eight of them at one position group.