J.C.MacSwell

Does everyone know the police officer is doing this, or just half the police force? Or do some just suspect it? Should they wait for an investigation to be completed, or just assume the worst? If the officer wasn't a rude and obnoxious individual would the facts appear different for her?

I's a pretty unfortunate "balance", when many feel there is a loss of control, and many feel the weight and benefits of immigration is not spread equally.

This is not a rebuttal of Trump's current request for funding. Trump has changed his position on most of this (not that he would admit it....if he got 10 feet of wall that proved effective, he would probably claim yet another "victory" and that he was right all along)

More than in the link you provided, yes. That post wasn't solely for you either. You may claim you do not need CNN, but you provided a link from them as the original source.

A little more context: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-cnntv/index.html Keep in mind this is coming from CNN. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign Keep in mind this is coming from Fox News.

What factors effect this small, very successful group of people? How much of this is effected by females personal choices, and influenced by personal biology and the decision to have kids and/or stay home for the most important development years of their lives? (a time that often coincides with a critical point in their careers) How much of this is sexism, and how much lifestyle choice? How much of the choice is driven by the fact that they chose to request, and successfully gained custody of their children after a break up? How much from the fact that the father is often older, and already further in his career? How much of it is from sexism in the past having put a very small percentage of men in these types of favourable positions? Do we kick them out, or do we disadvantage men vs women going forward? (fight past sexism with current sexism) This is obviously a problem. What can be done to reduce it without restricting rights and freedoms of both men and women? (other than the perpetrator's after the fact) Education is important IMO, but not in a manner that vilifies men, which is both sexist and counterproductive long term IMO. So how would it effect your vote? Would you vote for who you considered the best candidate regardless of sex? Or not?

Who would dispute the historic evidence...or the fact that there likely was plenty of reasons for it based on sexism in the past. Not saying sexism doesn't exist, but sexism is certainly more balanced currently. Personally I don't like sexism against woman or men, but some seem to think it is justifiable. It is opinion...I recognize that, but I don't believe it is without some evidence. There are a number of females running for the Democrat ticket with considerably less baggage than Clinton had and has.

Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. The coincidence currently is geographic and your system. You know that...yet you spout this. ...and I'm sure you have females that would get more votes than Clinton. And don't forget that after extreme left torments everyone into voting Trump in again in 2020 out of spite, you will finally get your Woman POTUS in 2024 (Nikki Haley)

I think the population is ready to vote for the right leader, male or female. Hopefully when we do elect a female prime minister it will be based more on that than "it's time for one". We did have Kim Campbell as PM, though she was not elected, and have had female Governors General, the "official" head of state when the Queen is not on Canadian soil. Edit: I guess the Queen is always head of state

There are some concerns: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/national-illegal-border-crossing-us-from-canada-1.4863636 "Along this one sector of the border, apprehensions of people crossing illegally are up 60 per cent over the past year, although the numbers remain minuscule relative to activity on the border with Mexico." That's not referencing the whole border, but clearly there is an implication that our border has significantly less concerns with illegal crossings.

Is this a joke? Where has this term been mentioned?

No. Just trying to make a point. Sorry if you feel I didn't think you would understand that. What terms, exactly, am I defending? I'm generalizing that through ignorance any one of us could say something potentially offensive to some people. I'll give you an example of my ignorance. Until recently I would not have expected anyone to take offence to wearing black make up on Halloween in a genuine attempt to say dress up as an African American/Canadian. (Wear a black face...as opposed to "blackface" with exaggerated features) I don't fully understand the problem with doing that, and believe it is regrettable, but at least now I am aware it can be offensive to some. On topic "stupid woman", I think I understand that can be taken either way, a derogatory word followed by an identifier, or derogatory term.

I think at any significant depth it is very difficult, even for stationary systems.

None of us know all possible contexts of potentially offensive remarks. We didn't all grow up together in the same areas of the World. Ideally we eventually won't need to, and we can get along OK with our partial ignorance as long as we mean well. But to some degree we are stuck with our history. Zapatos has given a good example of that, though it is not clear why religious tie would be mentioned at all in that case (maybe in a group of gardening priests and rabbi's, where many priests were dirty but only one rabbi?)

With all due respect, this sounds like a call to create a power vacuum. What types would be the first to feel compelled to fill it?

The mock number is getting a little high... ...there aughtta be a limit

Trumps new chant: Build a Wall! Keep then In!

That's going too far! ...should be a disclaimer to let us know you mean to reflect on Trump...and only Trump ...of course...if you said "stupid person" you double the potential number of people that should feel insulted

That's hilarious!

...because he had already read it in the link...

...and because it is not still, you need pseudo forces, like coriolis, to compensate, as it spins and wobbles around the Sun. But as I said, it can be a reasonable approximation much of the time.

I would suggest that should be taught much earlier if that is the case. (I am not familiar with your levels, but he is 16)

Inertial...with an explanation as to what can be considered a convenient approximation, and why. I'm not sure Harald doesn't already have a working understanding of that...just got a little mixed up on the G.

Why do you feel that assumption is needed? Any acceleration would be with respect to an inertial frame...not the Earth. The Earth is just a convenient approximation much of the time.

I was kidding in this instance...as much as I lament the current political atmosphere.