“The enemy of my enemy could also be my enemy… but I’ll deal with them later.”

Kinda upset that ‘slam’ doesn’t refer to Doug Ford losing in a wrestling match with the Auditor General.

I could go for some Poutine…

Trucks often have to use ‘engine breaking’ or a ‘Jake brake’ to slow down. Basically, they cut fuel in the intake stroke, changing the engine into a ‘compressor’ to exchange forward momentum into useless compressed air that gets thrown away in the exhaust. The result is a lot of ‘noise’ from the truck as it slows down. It’s not intimidation, it’s a valid way to slow down without excessive wear on wheel brakes. Or, it shouldn’t be intimidation. In some municipalities, engine braking or Jake braking isn’t permitted.

“Did you know that salt and malt vinegar is not a traditional way to dress your French fries in the United States?”

“What the f#$% is wrong with them?”

Conflict of interest? Say it ain’t so…

I mean, wouldn’t the safest place to continue doing concerts would be Australia, where they actually have pretty stringent gun laws?

Y’all need Jesus^H^H^H^H^H^H Robertson screws.___

certainty

I like this one the best. A dilemma is not necessarily that there’s no good options, but rather the decision is difficult. Think of the time traveler killing Hitler problem: if you kill Hitler too early, he isn’t globally hated anymore when time plays out, and you’re just a murderer. Too late, and you’ve allowed so many people to die just to justify that he deserves to die… Where’s the ‘right time?’ There’s a giant spectra of time that you can make as a justification of when to kill Hitler.

Yeah. Bicycle - two wheels. Bisection - two sections. Yes, you are cutting a something into parts, but it’s identifying you have 2 of them after the cut. If you have 3 sections after the cutting, it’s trisected.

It’ll just get reported as former NDP MPP censured.

Don’t forget the words of our leader of His Majesties Loyal Opposition, and possible future PM: “My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That’s the solution in the long run – more money will not solve it.”

He’s apologized since, but you as they say, you understand how someone truly feels the first time they say something, unfiltered.

There was a war on - all the real heros were fighting overseas?

Well, depends. It certainly can be used in a variety of situations. The basis of the notwithstanding clause doesn’t require that rights be set aside, it can be used to identify that an interpretation of rights is incorrect. For instance, where rights have been determined in the outcome of a case that isn’t deliberately mentioned in the relevant act, it would be perfectly acceptable for parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to say “no, that’s not what is written in the law we wrote.” The ‘threat’ of using the notwithstanding cause in Ontario recently in the Ford government is a good example of that. They ended up not needing it because the courts determined that the original ruling was probably ‘wrong’ before it was needed…

In this case, gender expression is a right that has been established repeatedly despite it not being explicitly mentioned in Section 15. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the basis is that gender expression is related to the sex of the individual). So, it ‘technically’ could be used correctly in this situation, but they are certainly assholes for fighting people for expressing their gender when it has been firmly set outside of the language.

I agree. To think that all those suffering Lyme might not have contracted the disease if we had continued offering a Lyme vaccine…

Technically, what it’s the parliament saying “this is the law, no matter what anyone else thinks of it.” It’s not suspension of law - an equal legal branch forming government is a feature of the United States. Here, like a lot of Westminster Parliamentary style governments, democracy is supreme to any rise of a kritarchy.

Sorry Hoss, but DDT doesn’t work anymore. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/bb-ddt.html

Actually, withholding Assent is the circuit breaker. The NWC is a mechanism to ensure that parliament makes the law, not judges. A judge may have a perfectly reason for making their verdict, and it totally makes sense to do so by a good number of the populous, but parliament is in charge and they’re allowed to set the rules.

Drug Ford passed a law shrinking city council after the whole ‘election thing’ kinda started. People got a judge to say that’s unconstitutional (and reading the reasons to the verdict - it was all sorts of crazy talk about how it was unconstitutional. Drug Ford said he would use the NWC to pass a replacement law doing the same thing, but that wasn’t necessary as the next level of courts looked at the original ruling, went “yeah, the Government is TOTALLY going to win on appealing this - let’s just say they’re allowed to resize the council and call it a day.”

We needed a database? I thought the answer is generally “yes, they all are.”