Signals.Cpl

How long would that last? One major issue that pits ROC vs Quebec and the NDP is screwed, choose Quebec lose the rest, chose the other provinces lose Quebec. And all those things that are supposedly pushing people to the NDP camp all depend on the context at the time, robocalls won't matter if the people are happy with the state of the country,one event and F-35's won't matter. If the Conservatives are running the country well, the budget is balanced on election year, the swing vote just might stick with the Conservatives.

And the NDP depends on Quebec, there is an inherent danger with being a federal party with most of your support in Quebec. Right now the Conservatives might not win a majority, but we don't know what will happen in 3 years time, we could see Quebec swinging back to BQ or the Liberals, the NDP has to fight to protect their strongpoint of Quebec and that could prove to push away people from voting for them in the ROC.

Could be considered NBC warfare after all.

Yeah, kind of like a reply to the NDP leads in the polls threads. Please tell me how the NDP leading in the polls in 2012 will help them win an election in 2015? Up until a few weeks before last election the NDP was third place and the Liberals were second place, now explain why it can't happen to the conservatives, the NDP or any other party? And honestly, most NDP supporters are counting on the F-35 and the robocalls to be weapons next election, but that being 3 years from now what are the chances that those subjects will still be relevant? we could have a whole host of other things that bring down the Conservatives, or the NDP or just bury the Liberals. The BQ could gain back most of their seats or the Greens could gain many more seats. Polls in 2012 might have some value, but they do not show anything about the outcome of the 2015 election, the NDP can be leading the Conservatives by a significant margin in 100% of the polls over the next 3 years, but what would that mean on election day? Would it mean that the conservatives cannot score some victories in an election campaign to win the swing vote? There are hardcore NDP supporters and Hardcore Conservative supporters, and a large number of swing votes. Depending on when you conduit the polls that swing vote might go either way.

Well if we put the polls in a chart we can see significant gain or drop in 2-3 week period so that speaks nothing for the value of these polls in say 3 years.

And if you see the trend, Conservatives go down and then go up, NDP go down and then go up, What you can take away from these polls is that they mean nothing. There are significant drops in one poll only to rebound a week or 2 later. Now imagine what the landscape is going to be in a year, or 2 or 3. If you have a poll that shows the NDP trailing the Conservatives significantly or vice versa it means nothing, my ultimate point is that the NDP supporters tend to celebrate irrelevant victories and try to put them in the light that Canadians are shifting to support them.If you think that the polls of this year matter in the election of 2015 then you are seriously in need of a reality check.

Whats to stop him from cutting off the tracking device and disappearing before the police get there? If a doctor is willing to put their career on the line by saying he is ok as long as he takes his meds then let him live in a minimum prison or a halfway house where he will follow strict rules and be monitored when taking meds and will be with curfew and all that stuff. Break the rules and he goes back to the hospital.

Just saying. http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-election-polls/ Seems that polls have consistently been dominated by the conservatives since the election last year and we have a few years to go. Seems to me its too early for the NDP to be celebrating any victory when they are trailing most of the time.

Not any more. http://britishfreedom.org/suicide-bombers-to-go-on-strike/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744032/posts

I know what to expect, you don't, I prepare for the test by dedicating my entire time to practicing the important portions while you have to dedicate time on everything because you don't know what on the entrance exam. Overall you would be better off in college/university but I would get in because I would know the questions for the math, language, sciences, history etc questions. If there are 100 questions for the entrance exam 20 per subject I can do better then you if I know the questions or at least have a hint of them I can devote more time to the area that matters. For Canadian University and colleges you need to meet the prerequisites and generally they won't give you entrance exams, therefore I would say its mostly based on merit rather then doing good on one test. It was an Electronic Devices course, and thinking and analyzing doesn't matter much If you have to do it at the exam while I had days, weeks or months to prepare my questions.

Have you heard of the Swedish military? They have 2X our strength, their own domestic fighter industry, and can deploy 8 times as many infantry as Canada can.

Well, anyone will any sort of foresight could have told us that putting the power of this organization in the hands of 5 nations who fall in 2 camps that hardly ever agree. The only time the UN has worked was when one of the two sides has boycotted the SC.

I would have to say that the UN needs to restructure the SC to be more democratic, by removing veto power, expanding to include the economic superpowers rather then the military superpowers. If the UN had its own force of Peacekeepers that are trained and equipped to the same standard and have the same ethics. Right now the UN pays $1,000 per soldier deployed thats why so many third world countries send soldiers just for the hard currency that they get from the UN. What we need in a world organization is the ability to intervene in an emergency within a small amount of time, for that they need a force of PK's that can be deployed at a very short notice with their own equipment and vehicles.

Do you have any source on the protests starting immediately? And I do know that the US did not have 100% support because Iraq has 3 main groups one of them was bound to be unhappy to lose power. The problems started because there were not enough boots on the ground to provide security, prevent looting, and restart the basic services.

Stealing cars, and dangerous driving convictions. does it even matter? If you are convicted 69 times of shoplifting you have shown that you don't have any intention to abide by the laws of the land. Do we have to wait until the guy get 60 violent convictions? Do we have to wait for a death to lock up a menace to society? I don't see why we have to treat criminals like they are the victims. What do you mean by rehabilitation though, university education?

I love people getting whats coming to them. I prefer if someone rots in jail for a crime then living next door to me and potentially endangering my family.

You started high school at 16? I don't know about you,but I was a year from graduating at 16.

And we have neither.

Ok, great now back up your claims with facts. Life in prison should mean life in prison. Life sentence should mean you spend your life in prison. Canada has no such thing as life in prison. Life sentence, you spend your life in jail or you don't, you can argue the wording all day but it does not make you right.

Well if the government made University compulsory then they have to pay for it... high school is compulsory until age 16 except in Ontario and New Brunswick where its 18.

life sentence Noun: A punishment for a felon of imprisonment for life. A simple google search proved you wrong.

Please inform me how I am wrong, and don't be stingy on the details. I do not care if you are supervised or not, if you are not in prison you are a danger to society. Life In prison should mean just that, life in prison for the remainder of your natural life.

When Arabs accept Israelis right to live we an talk about how different they are from the Nazi's. So the israelis are more reasonable on the subject? Which is the subject?

how would you handle the situation different? Clear the settlements and then let the Arabs back in to attack Israel? What is the solution, Israelis might be against that, but until someone has a better solution to the problem it becomes irrelevant. If Israel removed all settlements form the contested are what then? The Arabs trickle back in, set up rockets and attack again? If the Palestinians were able to police themselves and guarantee that they will not be launching attacks against Israel I don't see a reasonable excuse for the Israelis to refuse them use of the land.

I think that the peace process is stalled most of all by many arabs refusing to recognize the right of Israel and its people to exist. Think about it, I punch you, and you punch me back... this goes back and forth for a long time and then once in a while I just flinch and you punch me... Please inform me how I did this? I presented the other side, I just think that the Arabs are just as responsible for the whole mess as the jews if not more so. Saying one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong is stupid. I never claimed the Israelis were innocent or right all the time, but he claims that the root of the problem is israel which is wrong. I don't follow.