Wilber

If the PM has too much power it is because our elected representatives give it to him. He was after all, elected as an MP, just like the rest of them. If they won't stick up for each other, he has almost unlimited power.

The awarding of a VC is not an empty act, it is a most serious act.

I disagree. People are people. Escalation is escalation. When I was going to school and two guys had a beef, they went outside and settled it with fists. When one said uncle it was over. Now they often bring weapons and uncle is not enough. The fact that nations have nukes will not prevent them from engaging in conflicts. India and Pakistan never did stop having low level conflicts over Kashmir after they got nukes. The difference now is that there is also the possibility of a nuclear exchange. No sane government will want to use nukes but the first use of one by a country will probably be an act of desperation when a conventional war is going very badly. That war will probably not be between the US and Iran, or the US and anyone else.

So as long as the guy running the meth lab in his basement doesn't blow up his house and yours with it and you don't care if you are living next door to a toxic dump there is no crime. But the guy breaking into your car to steal a couple of loonies he sees sitting on the consul in order to buy those drugs is committing a crime. Who's the bigger victim, him or you?

Even though the British did it once before for another country, The VC is also the highest honour for a Britain, Australian or New Zealander (and possibly others). None of them has seen fit to award it to their own unknown soldier. Canada is making a basic change when it comes to the criteria used for what is possibly the most esteemed award for valour there is. The VC and what it stands for belongs to more countries than just Canada. I'm not sure about this.

So I should take nonsense seriously as long as it comes from the UN.

I think it is getting more difficult every day to take the UN seriously.

Ya learn something every day. Apparently there is a precedent for this. In 1921 the British awarded a VC to the American unknown soldier of WWI and the Americans reciprocated by awarding the British unknown soldier the Medal of Honor.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place. Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse. I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them. Andrew Using that logic the country would be a safer place if we were all walking around armed. MAD on a personal level.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime? Someone is busted for operating a crystal meth or crack lab and has no direct contact with the lives he screws up, does that mean there is no crime? Do we have to go out and find each addict that bought some of his stuff before there is?

Anything less than a clear majority on something as major as secession is a recipe for a whole lot of bad stuff. If 49% are passionate about not dismembering their country it is a recipe for violence if not civil war. There are dozens of historical lessons to that effect. As August has said we like to think and act like reasonable people but there are limits to everything.

What do you expect when a province with 25% of the ridings has "opted out" of representation by national parties? That's a problem when you have a system that tries to give adequate representation to all regions instead of rep by pop. You have a party concentrated in one area that is dedicated to dismantling the country getting 51 seats with only 10.5 % of the popular vote and then you have a national party getting only 29 seats with almost 18% of the vote. Basically you can form a government by winning big in two regions as long as one of them is Ontario. It's a dilemma we are probably stuck with for the forseable future.

Forgiving is more like it. While most people wanted to give them a spanking, reducing the house to a two seat opposition was not healthy. 33 is a good number but more than they deserve.

They would have only done that to me once. They wouldn't get a second chance.

I was in Home Depot a couple of weeks ago. There were two guys at the till in front of me. One had something large and paid for it. The other one grabs a chocolate bar from a little rack beside the till and whips out his debit card to pay for it. Who knows whether he had to pay a fee but you see this more and more. No wonder the banks are making a killing. I love my bank stocks.

You can't help but wonder. If it happens the next time, you should start asking some questions. Be nice when you do.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

I'm not using it as an argument against climate change, you are using it as an argument for climate change. I am just pointing out that it may not be affecting the bears the way some are saying. Maybe they are not the canary after all and will adapt. I don't know and don't think you do either. If mother nature was determined to bump off the bears, all the conservation in the world wouldn't save the wild population.

I agree 100% with the vets. The VC was never intended for that and has never been given to anyone other than an individual for an individual act of bravery by any Commonwealth country. It may be well intentioned but it's a bad idea.

Well put.

Another agreement. If we are to blame it is because we have built a system that allowed these people to milk it for ten years before they were deported. Now that they have been caught trying to re enter the country illegally using forged documents, they are trying to use the child to accomplish the same purpose. Surely there are far more worthy people entitled to our compassion.

They should change the name of this country to the Confederation of Whining Regions.

There is no other position on non voters and unless you restrict the ballot to two candidates you are never going to have a system that can guarantee a government will have a majority of the popular vote and even then you would need a country wide proportional system based on rep by pop. Given the population of Atlantic Canada compared to the rest of the country, that is something you really don't want. The Atlantic provinces have greater representation in both the Commons and the Senate than their population warrants. It is you who has the legitimacy problem.

More than anything it points out that no one really knows the answer. Maybe warming has had different effect on bear population that wasn't predicted. Doesn't mean there isn't warming just that "the science" regarding its consequences is just an educated guess. Really there are three different debates here. One is the effect of warming, the second is the degree to which humans are influencing it and the third is what and whether we can do enough to arrest it. Three different debates and quite probably no one size fits all answer. Another take

It has everything to do with you assuming that those who didn't vote don't support the government and think the same as you. A presumptuous and pompous attitude IMO. Are you in favour of compulsory voting? If not, there is no way that any government could have a majority of eligible voters and with more than two parties, even then it is unlikely. Or would you just prefer a good old fashioned dictatorship where no one gets to vote?