Big Guy

My first reaction is no. I would not be comfortable with her living in my neighborhood. At my age, I seek and retired to a quiet living space and am uncomfortable with what notoriety and disruption that her proximity might bring. From the reaction on this board, I can see some individuals egging her house or creating other problems for her and her family with the intent of forcing them out - I might get caught in that crossfire or be forced to get involved. My grandchildren do visit occasionally and I have no problems with her in regarding the possibility she might hurt them. On the plus side, I would like to get to know her to a point where she might share with me the reasons for what she did. During the course of my career, I had the opportunity to work in a maximum security institution and was able to have candid conversations with people who had done some very bad things. I found it fascinating in hearing what their explanations and/or excuses were. As to her guilt and/or appropriate punishment, I leave that to the courts. I have no control over the various reactions different people have for her. I believe that her husband knew what he was getting into when he married her. Her children were never consulted. Her children had no say or any involvement in her "sins". They deserve the right to grow up normally and I would support both physically and financially their right to a normal upbringing.

There are varying degrees of murder as there are of any other crime. There are many reasons why sentencing varies with the same crime. The idea of mandatory minimum sentencing is not new. It has been attempted and rejected by all democracies. "Mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offence or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favor the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the most serious offences and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender, the tendency is not to favor punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences." http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr05_10/p9.html As it follows, the more informed you are regarding the law the more you reject mandatory minimum sentencing. The posting on this board is a good example of that.

Stupid people learn nothing from their mistakes. Smart people learn from their mistakes. Really smart people learn from other peoples mistakes: http://lawenforcementleaders.org/issues/reforming-mandatory-minimums/ Mandatory minimums do not work !!

If you are referring to child molestation then I disagree: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/chld-mlstr/index-en.aspx

Looks like the USA escalation in Syria is based on American frustration with Turkey and an attempt to elbow out the Russians in their quest to befriend the Turks. http://video.aljazeera.com/channels/eng/videos/expert-analyses-obamas-decision-to-deploy-250-troops-to-syria/4862037573001 I wonder how the Turks are looking at the USA aiding their enemy. But it is getting more and more difficult to figure out who are allies and who are enemies over there. I hope our troops do not find out the deadly way.

Have seen nothing new on the next trial. This one is not going to be appealed. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-no-appeal-1.3551762 All I can find ion the next one is "The trial might not happen at all - Could the complainant be scared off by the treatment of three women who preceded her? Could the collapse of the first case cause the Crown to reconsider? “One option is that the Crown takes a hard look at their case and having done that, decides there isn’t a reasonable prospect of conviction and decides to withdraw the charge,” said Stewart.

Thank you for your candor. You have crossed the line into being rude. I no longer have interest in your views. One could say I no longer give a sh*t. Goodbye.

You believe what you want to believe. I believe what I read, what has been cross referenced and verified to my standards. I have no desire to or interest in trying to change your mind. History has a way of filtering out crap that is mixed in, in an attempt to spin defeat into victory. We did wonderful things in Afghanistan, just look at the results! If you feel it is a positive that a nation is told it is sending in a provincial reconstruction team and ends up with 160 deaths, $billions of wasted dollars , thousands of innocents killed then that is your view. It certainly is not mine. You go ahead and re-fight that Afghanistan war in your mind and come out a winner. I am not interested in revisionism of a debacle. As to understanding, I agree that I do not understand how anyone could see the past through your eyes. But then again, if I thought that you had "twisted opinions" and made "shit up" I would not only ignore your views but certainly not waste my time in commenting on them. I guess we differ in more than one respect.

That may be correct. But you give me an incarcerated 12 year old girl who is allowed no contact with her parents for months and I will get her to plea bargain to killing Jimmy Hoffa. You can't be serious? A 12 year old, held in solitary jail with interrogation by Israeli terrorist forces? I am surprised they didn't get her to admit the 9/11 plot in the USA.

As to "Education -What/who made you change your thinking?" - thanks for the question. My father. When I was in grade 11 (for the first time) in Toronto, I spent most of my school year shooting pool, playing pin ball, playing football and basketball for the school teams, playing in the senior band, playing in the school Dixieland band, participating in cadets and discovering girls. The result was that it was suggested (actually I had little choice) that I repeat grade 11. I was invited for a long talk with my father. He told me that the free room and board I was receiving at home was contingent on a successful educational career. He also suggested that since I was doing far better in cadets than in school that I might consider joining the army when i no longer had free room and board. I considered my choices, went back to grade 11 (watching all my friends go to grade 12 and unable to play for any school team until after the Christmas results - a school rule at the time) changed my study and attendance habits and managed to make the Honor Scholars list. I was able to stay in that category until graduating from University of Toronto 7 years later with two professional degrees. I thank my dad for helping to change my way of thinking. As to the next 50 years, I have learned to listen to what people have to say, investigate their logic and reasons for their views. Then, and only then do I "cement" into a point of view - although I have changed my mind, infrequently, but for good reasons. I had an unhappy experience as a young man and developed a strong anti-gay, anti gay marriage and intolerant attitude. After I had written something for a public forum about why gay marriages should not be recognized, I was invited by a gay group to meet with them. I accepted the invitation. The grounds for my views were based on religion, procreation, sex and financial repercussions. I made my arguments and was politely listed to. I listened to various other arguments based on tolerance, social responsibility and equal human rights. I thought about the discussion for a few days and changed my mind based on the arguments based on equal rights. That was an epiphany and a change in thinking. Thank you for the question.

Like in Vietnam, Iraq peace keeping, Canadian Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Teams (KPRT's) etc? Mission creep !!!! What business has the USA or any other country (except for Russia because they were requested in) have putting troops on Syrian soil. Syria is still a sovereign nation last time I looked. And if you believe what you are told about military deployment by current military and political leaders then I can understand your position. I believe neither. I remember how Canada's beneficial KPRT mission ended up in bloody war. Oh - And I do read my own sources and have an opinion based on the credibility of who the source is reporting on.

Successful foreign policy is dealing with the way the world is, not what we want it to be.

So "mission creep" continues in the American created problems in the Middle East. The USA has decided to send an additional 250 ground troops into Syria to "fight ISIS". http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-adding-us-troops-syria-momentum-isis/story?id=38645872 Syria is still a sovereign nation, has not asked for American assistance in fighting its civil war and the USA has no business doing anything on Syrian soil. It looks more and more like USA stands for United States of Amnesia. After Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. the USA appears to have forgotten any lesson it has learned. Hello Ottawa, get our troops the hell out of that area before we get dragged into this "mission creep" and end up with another Afghanistan fiasco. Obama is kicking this burning ball down the road for the next president and we should make sure we are not on that team.

If done properly and with foresight, Canadians can end up with something which we have chosen and built with private money. A win, win and win situation. What better advertising fodder would an architectural firm, a developer or a builder have than in being able to boast to having facilitated this project?

Why would you want to discuss anything with someone who is so "ill equipped". I would also assume that someone like yourself, whom I assume feels they are "well equipped", and whose professional expertise and time should then demand premium payment would so graciously part with that valuable advice for free. This "ill equipped" individual will continue to charge the same price for his professional consultation using anonymous boards as those who consider themselves as expert in their fields. Why would anyone who you demean and refer to as "ill equipped" and whose views you consider to be "petty ad hominem" be interested in continuing any discussion with someone who I consider to be rude? I try to not get involved in sharing points of view or discussions with posters who I consider to be unable to communicate in a civil matter. I misread your attitude and apologize for wasting your time and my time. I consider this consultation completed and the cheque to cover what I value for your advice and valuable time is in the mail.

Looks liked Kasich and Cruz have decided to unite to dump Trump. They plan to co-operate on a few primaries to try to get one of them winning certain primaries: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/ted-cruz-john-kasich-join-forces-to-stop-donald-trump/index.html Not sure if it appears arrogant to presume that you can tell your supporters on who to vote for. This may backfire on them.

Thank you responding to my "petty ad hominem". I will soon forward what I feel your advice is worth.

I have no doubt in that is the way that you think. Shoo, go away. Go pick an argument with somebody else who cares what you think. Anyone interested in how the Israeli military treats 12 year old girl "terrorists" can get an insight at : http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/meet-youngest-palestinian-female-prisoner-160425060347954.html Time to dump Israel and look to Iran as Canada's associate in the Middle East.

My whole intent of posting this OP was because I was not yet sure of my position. I solicited other views so when I made my decision it would be based on looking at all the options.

Thank you for the reply. I have always treated any financial advice and financial analysis by anonymous individuals on public access bulletin boards as worth what it is that they are being paid to give that advice. These boards are not generally populated by rich individuals. They have better and more lucrative things to do with their time. Many years ago I was giving my young grandson a lecture on saving and possibly investing his allowance and the money he was making on his part time job (cutting grass). His reaction was a respectful, "Gee gramps, if you got all the answers, why aren't you rich?" I would pose the same question to those who are sharing their expert opinions on these boards on investments and stock market strategies.

I don't know. Why bother posting your views?

My suggestion is that one way to generate monies is to have a means test for entitlements. Some people view entitlements as an investment program where everyone is allowed to a payback depending on your risk and how much you have invested. I believe that there are certain entitlements (like CPP) are government forced insurance plans where the payments should be made on need. My starting suggestion is that the CPP have a ceiling of $200,000 income a year for a person to receive any payments. A person with that kind of income does not require additional income. It is only my approach based on my personal vision of our society.

The residence of the Prime Minister of Canada is the place where our PM hosts leaders and dignitaries from around the world. It has nothing to do with the temporary occupant but a reflection of our nation. Great Britain has 10 Downing Street worth between $150 and $200 million. The White house in the USA is worth about $300 million. When we are prepared to spend $billions on faulty foreign policy we should not cheap out on where we host the rest of the world.

The Star has located another potential accuser but she does not seem interested in making a criminal complaint: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/24/jian-ghomeshi-case-shines-spotlight-on-post-incident-contact.html I thought that this was a dead issue and the judgement has been made. I guess it is not.

You have a few Muslims agreeing with you: Small numbers of Muslims find comfort, not concern, in Trump's strong stance on immigrants. They see it as proof that the Republican presidential front-runner could better contain extremists than other candidates. "People have the wrong idea, even Arabs and Muslims," said Tamer, 40, who works in real estate and construction and lives in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, which is known for its large Arab and Muslim population. "I like the fact that he's a little nuts. He's got the good heart, he cares about America." http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_MUSLIMS_FOR_TRUMP_MIOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-24-10-03-10 See, you are on the same side as the Muslims!