Big Guy

End result - Negligent mother absolved, Zoo absolved (after "upgrading" the barriers that were originally satisfactory but allowed a 3 year old through), boy unharmed and gorilla (having done nothing out of the ordinary) dead. That is fact. If a member of the public walked into a zoo with a rifle and shot dead a gorilla would that be OK?

I have no control over what you choose to read into anything - and have no desire to do so. I believe that my position on your views is quite evident. I'll repeat, "The Palestinians (apparently 2 from the West Bank) just took out 4 Israeli citizens. Outrageous !!!! Time for Israel to retaliate!"!!!!!!!!!

Placing a sunset clause on legislation is nothing new. I would go along with the concept in this case but would not support any change beyond ranked ballots.

Which Iran is that: The one run by that Shah puppet of the USA, or the one run by that religious zealot Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or the one to-day which is trying to again engage with the rest of he world?

I assume that you would not like to see a Canadian embassy in Tehran? You are quite free to express your views on any news item at any given time. Unless you are more concerned about criticizing the messenger than the message.

Chances are I still that I would not get the individual whom I voted for. In theory, small region parties might hold the balance of power (like BQ had for a time and NDP holds in most minority governments) - so what is wrong with that? It is the stage for compromise, discussion, deal making and co operation - what is wrong with that? Is that not how our form of democracy is supposed top operate? There are some structures for PR are quite complicated and if asked, the normal person would vote against any change they did not fully understand. I followed how it was handled in Ontario a few years ago and how the question was bungled. I suspect that the government of the time did not want any change in the system and set the question up for defeat. It was not a binding question anyway so I doubt if it would have become law even if given majority support. "Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? / Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative? The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) / L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative) The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional) / L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)" Please note that ranked balloting was not an option.

Looks like a blip on the radar of future Canadian relations. The Iranians have arrested a Canadian: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/08/canada-says-its-working-on-behalf-of-academic-reportedly-jailed-in-iran.html Too bad we do not have an embassy in Tehran.: “Will do everything we can,” said Dion, who did not give additional details because of privacy concerns. The new Liberal government has said it will re-establish relations with Iran and reopen the embassy the previous Conservative government closed in Tehran 2012. “It would be easier to have an embassy in Iran,” Dion said. “Because it’s not the case, we will do everything we can and working with the like-minded countries that are in Iran.” But a senior government official not authorized to speak on the record told The Canadian Press this week that reopening the embassy is not imminent and more work needs to be done before relations can be re-established with Iran.

Looks like there is history and there is revisionist history. Israeli's have been keeping the truth of its past shenanigans in an efforet to control its reputation: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/israel-blocking-access-archives-160609054341909.html It appears that the Zionists would prefer to write Israeli history to their particular agenda. Why hide something that you are proud of?

What happens if someone runs as an independent?

The Palestinians (apparently 2 from the West Bank) just took out 4 Israeli citizens. Outrageous !!!! Time for Israel to retaliate! The last time those folks in Palestine (Gaza) managed to kill a few Israelis, the Israel's retaliated with air attack that ended up with 350 Palestinians dead for every Israeli killed by those wonky rockets. Well, this latest attack on Israeli sovereignty should then result in 4*350=1,500 West Bank citizens wiped out. Go Israel go!

Where my concern rests is that I believe that when I vote I do so for the individual in my riding. I believe their first allegiance is to their riding and the party policies are secondary. With a pure PR system, I would have no control of the individual who will be representing me. Some elected officials do not follow party policies blindly. For example, we live in a rural community. Lets say I support the Green party rep because she promises to fight for agricultural issues like wind farms, fertilizer restrictions, protection of local agriculture etc. I trust that he/she will prioritize that in Ottawa. Meanwhile, my vote is added and used to guarantee that 6 Green party reps (which do not include my candidate) are seated. Candidates based in urban areas are chosen. That was not my intention. I believe that ranked ballots is the interim answer. If it results in the person most acceptable to the riding, them so be it. While it is not exact rep by pop it is far closer than FPTP system.

Perhaps - but it is based on a $45 barrel of oil and and GST at 5%. Oil goes to $65 and GST raised to 7% (where it was before this economy started to tank) and we have a balanced budget by 2017 and surpluses after.

So if a party promises you that if you elect them then they promise: a) our country will be safe and secure b ) to maintain a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably c) to have a plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term. Then they get your vote? So if your views are shared by the majority of voters and the the Conservative party decides to follow your "direction", then they will get elected.! See, I told you it was simple.

Beef, shout, scream, spit, jump up and down ... It is a waste of time. The Liberals are a majority and JT is your PM until October 21, 2019. That is 3 years, 4 months, 13 days excluding the election date or 1230 days.

It will take many, many years before any military airplanes or ships that a Canadian government orders is delivered and functional. The kind of warships and airships we will need will depend on who our enemy is at the time. Will it be somebody in the Middle East, Africa, Russia or ....? Each demographic has different conditions. Will it be defensive, offensive or part of an alliance? What will be the state of technology 15 years from now? Will robotics have taken over warfare? Lasers as the main weapon? I have not heard nor seen a definitive plan anticipating our needs and the reasons for them. Why would we jump into committing $multi billions when we don't know what we need? How about a large armed transport drone that can drop into the war zone, open its loader and disgorge a number of robotic, unmanned tanks into battle?

Canadians vote in those people who promise to do what the majority of Canadians want. "What direction the Conservatives Should Take?" How about figuring out what the majority of Canadians want and change their platform to satisfy those wants? Then the majority will vote for Conservatives and they will again be in power. Seems simple enough to me.

50 years ago, Israel began to show its true colors and stuck it to the USA: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html In public President Johnson played it down but in private he saw the future. Too bad he did not do anything about it.

Perhaps they thought that this poster would generate a lot of discussion on opinion boards thereby giving them a whole lot of free publicity?

Interesting view. And it the child was killed by the fall into the enclosure then ....? "Zoo spokeswoman Michelle Curley said the outer barrier will now be 42in high – a half foot taller than before – with solid wood beams on top and at the bottom, plus knotted rope netting at the bottom." Now why would they do that if they considered it to be safe before the changes?

A valid poll is like a referendum in that it has to be a clear choice between only two defined choices. For example - What if a poll was presented that asked, "would you prefer a ranked ballot process over a FPTF process". If this poll (referendum) was asked after a well publicized explanation of how a ranked ballot system works then the result might be valid. But there are many different proportional representation systems. How do you educate the electorate of all the possibilities and then how do you word a plebiscite/referendum/poll of two choices? I am a proponent of the ranked ballot system. It does guarantee that the individual running in the riding is acceptable to the majority of voters in that riding. As to what party it favors - I suggest that it is the party whose platform is satisfactory for the majority of voters. What is wrong with that? The problem is not the process, the problem is that not all parties try to satisfy what the public wants but follows its own view of the world. If the majority of voters do not share it then you do not take power.

A few days ago, a 3 year old child fell into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo. One gorilla made contact After 10 minutes, the gorilla was shot dead. The child was treated for minor injuries. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/dallas-zoo-considers-adding-new-safety-barriers-after-cincinnati-gorilla-killed.html/ There was an investigation and a report was distributed: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/06/480962408/no-charges-against-family-in-gorilla-incident-at-cincinnati-zoo "Discussing the May 28 incident, Deters said the boy's mother "did not act in any way where she presented this child to some harm. She had three other children with her and turned her back." At that point, the boy scampered off, he said. And to anyone who believes a 3-year-old can't get far in a short amount of time, he said, "They can and they do.". "Deters also added that he was glad the zoo had altered the border around the gorilla feature." Looks like "no harm, no foul". Wrong - lots of harm: A gorilla was killed because of a human screw up somewhere. If you cannot handle four young children then you do not take them out in public without additional adult help. What if that child was on the sidewalk in a mall and ran out into the road and was killed while "she turned her back while looking after 3 other children"". Would that be an acceptable excuse? I think not. How can a 3 year old get into a gorilla enclosure? Were the bars too far apart? Was the barrier too low? Did the secondary safety measures not work? Were there secondary safety measures? I found ti interesting that "the zoo altered the border around the gorilla feature". Why would they make any alterations if they were adequate and safe in the first place. Looks to me like the only individual who come out looking good is the gorilla - and he is dead.

There are spoilers and there are spoilers: http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/589466

That is an interesting view. If I wanted to avoid opinions I would just remove this and other sites from my desktop. I demand nothing. The CBC is trying to create a forum where people will take responsibility for their opinions - what is wrong with that? If you post or state something on here under your avatar that you would not say at a family kitchen table then I suggest that you ask yourself why. If you have views that would get you fired, whose fault is that? If you are a bigot or mysoginist or anti-semite or homophobe then why should you not have to accept the repercussions of having (and sharing) those views? Most unpopular opinions are not popular because they are distasteful, divisive for our society, unhealthy and abhorrent to others. That is why they need the cover of anonymity for their source - the real individual. You do not need real names to crush opinion, you might want the real names to see if the individual has the courage to accept the responsibility for making controversial statements.

Do you then think that the 9/11 attack on the USA was "fair"? What about Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden etc?

I suggest that any comment made by someone using an avatar can be identified as to the source. If you have enough money, time and motivation, you can find out the identity of every member of this board.