Signals.Cpl

It is not so much how stupid he is, as how desperate he is as at some point it might become a better option to use Chemical weapons and risk a war with the west. But overall I am with you, its a lose-lose situation for the west. If Assad uses weapons we might end up supporting the very terrorists we are fighting in another part of the world and who will promptly turn around and fight against us with the money, weapons and resources we give them. On the flip side we might have to support a dictator if it comes out that the Rebels used those weapons. Either way we will have the majority of the population pissed at the west for one reason or another and this will become just another drain of resources and another threat for the west.

No, but from what my sister has told me there are plenty of people in China who are hoping to move to Canada or the US someday. Seeing as she lived and worked there for a number of years I tend to believe her much more than the "scores of people you may or may not know". Besides many is a relative term, to you 10 might be many but is most definitely not representative of the more than a billion people in that country, or many of those financially well off, or those in power might not want to leave either. Even if we were to assume that "many" in this case represents 99.9% of the Chinese population, which by the way I highly doubt, we are still left with a dramatic increase that we may or may not be able to sustain while also destabilizing our demographics and political system all at once.

What do Canada's untapped resources have to do with refugee status? The Refugee system was not intended to provide safe haven for anyone and everyone in the world who disagrees with the policies of their nation, it was intended to provide safe haven for those who were persecuted and under threat of death, serious injury, torture or other similar punishments. For every person who is granted unnecessary refugee status someone who is actually in need is denied and potentially sent to their death. We as a nation can help only so many people, lets make sure that we help the right once rather than protect those who require no protection and turn away those who desperately need our protection. If you would look at the CIA world Fact book you might just notice that there is in-fact a gap between male and females in China. Between the ages of 0-14 males outnumber females by over 18million people. Between the ages of 15-24 males outnumber females by over 11million people. Between the ages of 25-54 males outnumber females by over 14million people. Only above the ages of 54 do the demographics for the sexes balance out somewhat. So to sum up my point, in the age groups that start to or will within the next 10-20 years form relationships, marry and have children there are already some 43million men more than women so there is a shortage... Because we are already facing a problem with our aging population... You mean by moving their population to other nations? And if those nations don't want them? Invade? Canada as a nation has an obligation to its citizens and the immigrants it brings in to be able to support those immigrants through help with integrate in to Canadian society and availability of jobs. Introducing more people in to the workforce than our ability to create jobs just means we will increase the demand on services while no increase of productivity from the immigrants brought in, not because they chose so but because more immigrants were allowed in to Canada than the nation can integrate. If we have a problem with unemployment as it is, do we REALLY need to introduce more unemployed people who will even unwillingly rely on the system for support? Sorry don't get this, are you suggesting we open our borders to only those who can afford it? Thats great, exactly what we need, the criminals from other nations bringing their loot over to Canada along with their criminal enterprises.

She is the first of many if this stands the way it is. Even if half a % of Chinese women demanded refugee status for the same reason we would be overwhelmed, which would without a doubt change our demographics in a negative way while also making China's shortage of women that much worse while at the same time taking Refugee status from people who actually fit the bill as a refugee.

Because the government would have to build up the infrastructure to first build and then supply its small number of aircraft from its own factories which will be much more expensive in both the short term and the long term. This does not even account for the fact that we would then have to design our own aircraft which gets a bit more expensive as well. So are you suggesting that the government build a military industry complex that will be essentially a jack of all trades but master of none? It will be much more expensive, less efficient and will produce an overall substandard product for the needs of the government and its individual departments. And you think that creating a government company that builds all of our kit and equipment would solve this? How exactly?

And likely will never be in the same position...

Well there are two options, one of them seems to be the preferred method of ignoring everyone but the conservatives and pointing out how bad they are while the other is meant to find who has abused the system and recover the funds stolen and find a way to prevent it from happening again. You seem to be against looking in to all senators simply because it might just come out that it is not really only one party committing fraud but both main parties as well as the independents... Wait I get it, we will wait until the Liberals get to power to start digging for fraud in the senate, can't have all of the fraud uncovered at once now can we...

You mean the tariffs they increased rather than put in place? We import Canadian Flags from China why would coffins be any different? I think the shop was in Ottawa... but does it even matter who he will support? At the end of the day the question would be who can do the best job for Canada and tariffs might not be the biggest issue on the table. Why would the next election be very interesting?

No, I want to compare how an MP being silenced because of his views on abortion is a cause to attack the Federal conservative party but a MPP candidate being kicked out for potentially representing the views of the people. I couldn't care less about this incident if it wasn't for people trying to make it sound like the conservatives were doing something no other part does...ever.

I think she did not get a state funeral but rather a ceremonial funeral whatever that may be... http://news.yahoo.com/state-funerals-ceremonial-funerals-margaret-thatcher-193827325.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9999262/Margaret-Thatcher-should-not-get-quasi-state-funeral-says-Lord-Mandelson.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/17/margaret-thatcher-funeral-streets-procession

Goodbye to our economy?

What would happen if the conservatives at federal level or any of the provinces were to do soemthign similar? Essentialy kick someone out for similar reasons? There was an outcry because they silenced some who wanted to reopen the abortion debate and thus the conservatives were seen as oppressive etc... but the NDP somehow is right to kick out a candidate for disagreeing with the party line?

So if you dont follow the party line 100% of the time you cant be in the NDP even if you agree with 90% of their message? So basicly its all or nothing here...

What if this person represented the feelings/opinions of their constituents? I'm not saying they do or do not speak for their constituents in this case just asking a hypotheical what if the majority of the constituents agreed with those statements and those statements were made because of interaction between the candidate and the people?

Wasent there a thread about the conservatives forcing their MPs to toe the party line? People seemed pissed off about that but suddenly a MPP expressing their opinion is kicked out of the NDP for not following the NDP talking points...

The difference is that one you can get hit anywhere and anytime, sitting in your office on the 30th floor, or the basement 5 floors down and it means you are not safe anywhere because no matter how small or irrelevant the target is it still is a target whereas the other is an accident that does not take away your feeling of safety no matter where you are. One is an accident and the other is someone wanting you dead, trying to kill you... I take that bus or walk down that street or buy coffee in that store everyday when that location is targeted it feels like you are targeted. Accidents happen v. someone actively trying to kill you...

And I would get a better vantage point or even put up Camera's to view the attack... this is some random guy doing his job or just watching the Marathon...

I wouldn't as I suspect that this would be a case of lock the barn door after the horse has bolted where Boston would likely be one of the safest cities in the US for the next few weeks at least.

I know we shouldn't feed the troll but its a slow monday...

Well that explains a lot. Like what? I stand behind my comments, tell me what hurtful things I have said and I will tell you how they relate to your trolling. I'm wrong on this part, you don't hate her since you would have to know something... hell anything about her and her actions to even dislike her and you seem to be void of all knowledge on the subject. Yet you refuse to stand behind your posts... I guess that is typical for trolls.

What am I to say? You are a troll in this thread and you have admitted as much. You come here post some nonsense which is quickly disproven and then abandon the disproven "arguments" to post cute little pictures which subsequently you state you don't really agree with which brings me to the conclusion you are here to troll. Calling you a troll is not name calling its pointing out something you essentially admitted to... And what am I making up? You come to this thread which was a way to pay respect to a person who was influential in this world and start throwing idiotic attacks without base which once quickly disproved you abandon and start trolling a little harder. Then you demand that we defend her when your "attacks" are so childish and ignorant its not even funny... if you want people to take you seriously then by all means make an argument rather then continuing in this fashion. What am I expecting? You hate her because of her party affiliation rather than her actions which becomes pretty evident once you throw random accusations that don't stick and can't defend them once challenged...

Go away troll, you about admitted as much... you post things just to start an argument and when confronted you admit that you don't agree with your own posts...

Because at one point in time I took you seriously but that diminishes with each and every day when you post stuff like this... you come to this thread and attack her only to have most if not all of your arguments destroyed and you refuse to defend them so you throw more pictures out there that apparently you don't agree with. I don't need to defend her actions because you have done such an incompetent job of attacking her and all your arguments have been destroyed at least twice and thus you refuse to defend the opinion you googled...

Hardly the case. If you were part of a protest and I suggested for a riot to start would you participate in the riot? If you would then you had the intention to do so wether I suggest it or not, otherwise you would not involve yourself. You are presenting this as if the police created a problem but seems to me the problem exists everywhere those "protestors" go, be it Canada, the US or any other country. During the G20 there was protestors that had legitimate reasons to be there and they worked within the laws to get their message out, if someone had gone in and suggested they burn down a building or destroy something or other I doubt they would have done so because their end goal was to get their message out rather than destruction and chaos for the sake of destruction and chaos.

Defend your position? You have barely defended anything in your position that I challenged... but then again you post pictures you don't agree with to "defend" a position you don't really understand, at least thats how it looks.