Derek 2.0

Are you suggesting the political left played no part? Hardly. The political left is consumed by tendencies of failure, wrought by the belief that we can all just “get along”……The left’s failure to understand two truisms since the dawn of man, “Peace through strength” and “might makes right”, only guarantees continual bloodshed, brought on by an ignorant indifference coupled with the fallacy that is their vision of a Utopian World in which everyone shares their vaunted beliefs.

Sure you can, the police do it all the time, and like policing, UN Peacekeeping relied upon a presumption of infallibility and control, coupled with the notion that if you did/do injure or kill said infallible figures, though you might get away with it in the short term, the eventual retribution that would entail would be devastating to oneself. This of course was all squandered once the UN failed to respond in a meaningful way when belligerents committed genocide (as mentioned by Army Guy) in front of UN forces, furthermore, capturing and killing UN Peacekeepers with no real consequence. Hence the myth that is UN Peacekeeping.

Exactly, case in point, Rwanda........

I actually agree with you, I think worker mobility is one of the few things the EU has gotten right. I'd have no issues with an International Wokers Visa, valid in all countries that are signatories of said convention, a convention that also outlines the minimum standards and expectations of workers rights in each country.

Hie' kommie Bokke !!!

In my opinion, it seemed as if this was a Trudeau-Mulcair debate, with Harper watching and talking a bit........I think Trudeau looked desperate in his attacks against Mulcair. Inversely, Mulcair was able to get his licks in against Trudeau well sounding like an adult. Harper was Harper, he appeared to be enjoying himself (His emotion chip is clearly working) I think the focus of both the NDP and Liberals, against each other, was a result of internal polling, indicating both parties know they have to dethrone the other before going after the Tories if they have a hope of winning this election.

Another interesting poll that could hurt both the Liberals and NDP: Inversely though, it also found that: So the choice for many is the increased contribution for their TFSA or the new eligibility for OAS.......

So? Does that mean we have to adopt every UN Resolution, likewise support the policies of the majority?

From internal polling versus public polling in the media, I don't think the picture you paint is quite accurate in regards to the Tories....from published polls, the Tories appear to be rising once again in Ontario, and in BC, I put little stock in an orange wave, like I did several years ago with Dix versus Clark.

Another interesting one a friend just sent me: Not sure if CROP is reliable or not, but there you go......

Is not politics the reflection of the populace?

I think the numbers to be released next week, including data collected post debate and NDP budget release, will strain some of the mud from the water.......

True, but they do set immigrant and refugee numbers into the country. I was surprised the number of NDP and Liberal supporters also opposed, not much different than the Tories.

Did I suggest otherwise? I think though this is a clear indication as to why the Tories are steadfast in their planned appeal of the ruling.

An EKOS poll on immigration and "racism" in Canada.......in relation to the Niqab: A couple of things from the second graphic. Over 50% of under 35s are opposed and 60% of university students....

I think you’ve confused your geography. Southern Iraq has been a Shia stronghold for centuries, and ISIL doesn’t currently have a presence there. Likewise your suggestion of a Shia controlled Southern Syria, when the Alawites (an off-shoot of Shia Islam, of which is followed by Assad) are namely geographically located in Northwestern Syria, as they’ve been for centuries…..

I think she had a couple of good exchanges with Trump, but Trump also deflated her managerial prowess talking points from her experience in the business world. She, like many on the stage, focused in on the unsubstantial platitudes of Trump, but like many of the others, offered little more in terms of concrete policy. I think she “did well” by resonating with people with her economy of words in response to Trump “remarks regarding her face”, likewise retelling of her loss of a child to a drug overdose during the portion on States Rights/Marijuana. Without a doubt she’ll gain in the polls. I think Bush will also bounce back. Like Fiorina, he also deflated Trump’s talking points on buying and selling politicians, retelling how well in Florida he rejected Trump’s bid on bringing Casino gambling to the State. More importantly, which I think resonated with Republicans and other candidates, was his defence of his wife and brother, both targets of Trump. I think Bush showed more energy and countered the claim that he is too soft spoken (like his Dad). Furthermore, I think Rubio took Trump to the wood shed on foreign policy, making him look like the clown that he is. I feel he might gain some traction. Likewise, Chris Christie, who I think had a good showing and helped take his campaign off life support, both by talking policy and rekindling his tenure as States attorney. In the first debate, I think Graham did well on foreign policy and his defense of Hispanics. As to the losers….conventional wisdom says Trump got thumped, and looked unhealthy and tired, well also unable to answer pointed questions on policy. I think Walker also looked weak. Carson, though intelligent and well spoken, I think will fade away due to his confused policies and soft spoken demeanor. Cruz needs Trump to depart to regain the Tea Party vote share. Huckabee, though likeable, also offered little, but did create a good mantra on wishing to cure diseases ala Kennedy’s man on the moon speech. Kasich didn’t blunder or hurt himself, but was unnoticeable…….Rand Paul? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree

How so? By all means explain........

Your post's conclusion echoed my point from several pages ago.......in that a large Tory minority would survive (for a time) and a small minority (or a loss of plurality) wouldn't, denouncing the thought of some that any thing less than a Tory majority will result in a change in Government.

The principle behind UN peacekeeping isn’t a joke, the joke is the romanticism associated with the political left in this country, which believes that by simply rattle-canning our equipment white and adorning blue berets, then interjecting ourselves between two hostile forces will return us to the geopolitical realities of the 1960s, 70s and 80s. That is the joke. The truth is, such mythological realities ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. With the demise of the Soviet sphere of influence and the devolution of its once client states, so ended the notion that we can simply interject ourselves between two or more warring parties and achieve positive results. This is no more evident than with the failures associated with the various missions in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which ultimately required military intervention to stop the ethnic genocide in the region. The World today is a far more dangerous place, with belligerents that were once restrained by either the Western or Soviet spheres being replaced by “free agent” states and ideological movements (like ISIS) that wouldn’t be deterred by international law and the blue berets that would follow. As we’ve seen with various hostages taken (and killed) from NGOs and the international media, ISIS is not deterred by international convention, as such, lightly armed, ROE restricted Peacekeepers, would simply be further victims. The World has changed. Going forward, military intervention in failed States won’t look like the fabled Peacekeeping missions of the past, where belligerents looked upon Peacekeepers as referees. Intervention going forward will look like Iraq and Afghanistan……which is why many won’t involve themselves.

This time, back in 2011, Cain was starting to cut into Perry's lead in the polls.........I think as more of the also rans drop out, you'll start to see the establishment candidates numbers improve.......with that said, you never know if populous fever will carry Trump to 1600....... What could go wrong

Good, we're in agreement.

I think it’s too simplistic and the General is out of his lane. Stating we’ll just select “old women and orphaned children” to speed up the process doesn’t address the reality that such groups are a further drain on society and that much further from being self-sufficient (if ever). Likewise his suggestion that we just “fast-tract” those refugees that already have family in Canada, as alluded to by Minister Kenney, some such families very much so have relatives in the old country that we are currently fighting. With that said, I’m in agreement with the General that we should continue our military mission in the region, if not expand it in size and scope.

I disagree. I would say these polls indicate many Canadians, regardless of politics, understand that by helping to mitigate the causes of the exodus from the region, coupled with providing a measure of security in the region (including safe havens for refugees within their countries, like the Kingdom of Jordan is doing on the Syrian side of its border), will ipso facto reduce the number of refugees. Furthermore, I think it also indicates that many Canadians also understand that rushing the process for accepting refugees could pose a potential security threat (ISIL has stated that it has plants among refugees already in Europe). To a lesser extent, many Canadians might also feel adding a large number of refugees to Canadian cities, that have little prospect of being self-sufficient will prove a drain on limited resources.

The one who's husband posed on their facebook with a "handgun" and covered in gang tats?