Wilber

In my political memory, Stanfield.

Not the same story, this one was first hand from a local police officer who had personally seen this kid more than once. If you have heard the same story it is because this is not an isolated incident. You don't have to put them in jail and throw away the key (I agree that would be a bad idea) but you do need to inconvenience the little rats. Make them spend the next three months weekends picking up garbage for eight hours a day then spend their leisure time in a closed room with nothing to do but watch Lawrence Welk reruns on a TV they can't access. Anything they won't want to do again. Just telling them that what they did is wrong and not to do it again with no consequences is a waist of time. Not only is it a waist of time but it will leave them with absolutely no respect for you or your rules.

The latest locally. A lowlife's car was shot up the other night. The chief suspect is another lowlife who was recently arrested for the possession of a bullet proof vest and a 45 cal. handgun then released after paying a $250 fine. I guess he must of convinced the judge that he needed them for his own protection.

I voted yes but on one condition. Only when they are living in Canada or travelling to countries where they have no citizenship. When they are in the country of their other citizenship, they have should have no claims on Canada other than the right to return at their own expense.

Curious A clip from your link. What kind of f____d up logic maintains that using ground launched sub orbital missiles to destroy countries is not weaponization of space but using other ground launched missiles to shoot them down is the weaponization of space?

NOAD or NORAD? I assume that's a typo. Why would the Americans give Canada a say on the use of a weapon Canada has said it wants no part of, particularly if it is being used to defend against a missile aimed at the US? What exactly do you think the Canadian government could do to stop them?

A while back there was a 13 year old girl in this area that the police were catching with a stolen car every second week. Because of her age nothing could be done and she knew it. What kind of education is that? Of course, also because of her age, her name cannot be released.

The proposed law is directed at violent offenders not petty thieves. Keeping proven dangerous people off the streets. Right now people who have stolen thirty cars rarely had more than a nominal prison sentence if any at all. Teaching them that there are few if any consequences for their actions and that crime pays is not what I call early childhood development and is absolutely the wrong kind of education.

If it was just between the Jews and the Palestinians it would have been settled years ago but it has never been just about the Jews and the Palestinians. There has always been dozens of countries and groups trying to exploit the situation to their own benefit. It's a tool for them, not a problem to be solved.

You would have to know the unborn child was damaged. You can't seem to get past the mother and deal with the real victim, the child. If you sue someone because they were negligent or somehow cause you harm and their insurance company pays, their assets aren't being tapped either. If someone runs their car into yours, it is their fault and you are compensated by their insurance company, their assets aren't tapped. That's why we buy liability insurance. If find it ironic that under our law, a child can get compensation from anyone but their parents when they are the victim of gross negligence, neglect or criminal behavior. Merry Christmas all.

Justice for who, the mother or the child? Should the child suffer for it because it is the mother who screwed up instead of say, the next door neighbour they were hitching a ride with? It's an odd situation but the bottom line is, if the parents can't afford to pay, either the tax payer or an insurance company will have to, or the kid goes without the services it needs to live.

I believe the ruling was that the state had no right to interfere. She could consume all the drugs she wanted and the kid got a life sentence to the result.

Could be a lot of things. The rise in the Canadian dollar is probably another factor.

If the mother had been a passenger, she could have sued the driver on behalf of the child but because the mother was driving, the kid was SOL. There's logic for you. While the law won't hold a parent criminally responsible for what they do to a child before it is born, the kid should be able to take civil action in the event they have life long disabilities because of the parents irresponsibility. It's done all the time when a person cannot be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, the victims then sue for compensation in civil court where the standard of proof is different. I would include both parents if they were both a party to the behavior which caused the disability. Of course it would have to be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty that is was the parents actions that were responsible for the disability and that they were either negligent or knowingly engaged in the damaging behavior. People like Dave Eggen who have a problem with this and see it as trampling on a womens rights, wouldn't know a victim when they saw one. It's the kid people. We know someone who is bringing up a disabled grand child. The mother was on drugs during her pregnancy and the father was buying them. The kid is seriously disabled so they can't be bothered with him. They have a responsibility to that child and should not be allowed to walk away from it. The kid should have a way of forcing them to assume at least some of that responsibility. This is about the living who have been severly damaged by the actions of someone else and as dead people can't sue, I don't see how this could have anything to do with abortion.

Like "collateral damage". When you pull out a gun and shoot it at someone, it is not an accident if someone gets shot, even if it is not the one you were aiming at.

A bit of clarification. bmi is the branding for British Midland Airways. It is not British Airways.

Conservatives often try to make this a simple business decision when they talk about separation and countries. It never is. Whats being conservative got to do with it. I consider myself conservative and believe no one knows what might happen, including liberals. Anything is possible.

Another large machine to be sure which couldn't match the Arrow for speed or altitude capability but more versatile because It didn't put such a premium on it. Also another reason for the US not to be interested in the Arrow. At the same time it was developing what would become the most successful jet fighter and fighter bomber yet built. The F4 was also designed to fly off of aircraft carriers, the Arrow was not. In many ways the Arrow was the era's technological B2 or Concorde. A complete system, airframe, engines, avionics and weapons. First aircraft to be built using CNC machining, first to use digital computers, fly by wire, digital data link, 4000 psi hydraulics among others, using the most powerful engines yet built. An incredibly expensive project for a country the size of Canada. Major European countries can't even afford to do it and collaborate with others on most new major aviation projects. It was designed as a high speed, high altitude, long range interceptor and in that role its performance matched anything built since. Unfortunately, by the time it flew, it was becoming apparent the future need would be for multi role aircraft that could survive in a SAM environment, often at low altitude. I also saw the Thunderbirds flying the F4 at our airshow. A great smoky noisy beast, spectacular on its own but not a great formation aerobatic aircraft. It took so much area to get turned around, it used to disappear for a few minutes between passes. The switch to the F16 makes for a better show. They were the only ones to use the F4 as the Blues Angels stuck with the smaller more agile A4 during that period and most other display teams use jet trainers for the same reason.

I'm a nation, I'm a nation. Well if you are, I am to. But I'm different, I'm special. Well I'm just as special. No you're not. Yes I am. Sounds like a conversation from a kindergarten sandbox. On second thought, they aren't that infantile. Grow up Canada.

From a pretty good history of the Arrow. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baug...ther/arrow.html It had an empty weight of 44,000 and a gross weight of nearly 81,000 lbs which is huge for an air superiority aircraft. That's 20,000 lbs heavier than the gross weight of an F14, one of the biggest fighters ever built and it needed variable sweep wings to make it maneuverable enough to mix it up with other fighter aircraft.

I live in Buffalo, right next to Canada. You would think that Buffalo would benefit from the free trade agreement, NOT. Jobs are lost all the time, but mostly to Mexico. No spinoff jobs from Canada to my knowledge. Perhaps mail drops, and truck stops. The rise in the Canadian dollar over the past ten years has been primarily from NAFTA. I thought the wine trade was especially interesting because NYS produces wine south of Buffalo along the lake, and along the finger lakes. Canada produces wine around Niagara on the Lake. You can see the vineyards, but the wine flows in one direction, south. In any event, get ready for more protectionism not less. The free trade buzz word will be replaced with the balanced trade buzz word. Why do you think that the foreign automakers are setting up shop in US? To prepare for that day. The rise in the Canadian dollar vs US has happened quite recently. Not so much against other currencies. Under NAFTA, the Canadian dollar has also hit record lows versus the US dollar. It's present rise is mainly due to high commodity prices (oil, minerals etc) and the fact the US has been devaluing its own currency with its huge deficit. We produce lots of wine in BC but you can find plenty of California wines in our stores as well.

Where would you have liked that money spent? I was a mistake to build it even if it was a major achievement. The Concorde was a major achievement in aviation but was also overtaken by world events (oil prices). The countries that built it pressed on and took a major financial bath because they could not sell it to anyone other than their national carriers. It is not up to the Americans or anyone else to support our aviation industry. True the Arrow was also a major achievement in aviation but you have to build things people want to buy whether they are a technical tour de force or not. It is nonsense to blame the Americans for the demise of the Arrow. It was a Canadian decision to build it and a Canadian decision to kill it. The idea of nuclear armed interceptors was to destroy a bunch of aircraft with one warhead. We are talking about 1950's technology, missiles were not as accurate or reliable as they are now. The Cold War was at its height and nuclear war was considered a real possibility. The idea was that destroying the bombers with a few very small nukes was preferable to the bombers destroying a bunch of cities with a bunch of much bigger nukes.

Bomarcs were designed to intercept manned bomber formations. They weren't much use without nuclear warheads. I could never understand the muddle headed thinking that we should try to defend ourselves against aircraft carrying nuclear weapons by only using conventional weapons as a matter of principle. Seems like a death wish. Nukes were only discarded after manned bombers were no longer seen as a big threat. The Arrow was also designed as a bomber interceptor, not as an air superiority fighter and it would have been most effective in its design role carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. It was far too expensive a project and would have sucked up money that should have been going to other military projects. Considering the way Trudeau and other Liberal governments emasculated the military, to say that keeping the Arrow program going would have resulted in more military spending is laughable. The Arrow was certainly at the leading edge for its time (first fly by wire aircraft etc) but if the Americans hadn't bought it in great numbers it would have been a huge money looser. Why would they, they had plenty of bomber interceptors of their own, all armed with nukes. F101, F102, F104 etc. all dedicated bomber interceptors, soon to be made obsolete by ballistic missiles.

Might just be the death knell of this country if that ever came to fruition.It would in fact split our country in two and would create an isolation problem for Maritimers.Imagine what Quebec might want to do with the border and the scenario can be frightening. Lets keep it all together and happy ! The possibilities are endless. The ROC might decide that it needs to keep the south shore (or part of it) for just that reason and be prepared to fight for it. The ROC might find the US much easier to deal with (none of the language and two solitudes nonsense to deal with any more) and Quebec would find it is the one that is isolated. Making changes to the Constitution might actually be possible. Who knows, once the cat is out of the bag, anything could happen and I don't see that it necessarily follows the ROC would be a big looser.

Of course there were ironclad guarantees to that effect, right?