Hydraboss

Parts of it do, child, and you would do well to understand that. Shades of gray apply in many things, but not in political ideaology. As members have pointed out countless times, you are young and idealistic. That is good at your age. Once you reach the point where your pessimism has been well earned, you too will see the folly of your ways and beliefs. There are times when black and white are the only way. But I don't expect you to recognize that or believe it. Your ideals guide your beliefs (as it should be). Your political beliefs are juvenile but you will refuse to acknowledge that (as you should). One day, the taxes and the violent crime will be too much for your ideals, and you will become like me. Wait for it.....it'll happen.

As you grow up, you'll begin to understand that sometimes there are only two choices. Either we should be in Afghanistan, or we shouldn't. Either you murdered someone, or you didn't. Either you should spend $500 million on project y or you shouldn't. Either you want to increase taxes, or you don't. There is no place for: I think we should most likely be in Afghanistan. I kinda murdered someone. i think we should sort of spend $500 million on project y. I believe we should partially increase taxes, but not really. It's called taking a stand for what you believe in. Try it. It only hurts for a minute.

Provincial means absolutely nothing, otherwise the Tory's would be running the world. Don't get me wrong...I would greatly like to see the complete self-destruction of the federal Liberals and have the NDP survive. I think it's high time the Canadian public had a clear choice - left or right. The multi-party system does nothing except confuse the issue. Either Canada is socialist or not socialist. A two party system with the NDP on one side and the Tory's on the other would finally answer that.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that. Anything in the past 22 years?

Mind showing me one? I just looked and can't find a single poll where the NDP lead the country federally. I would be interested to read one. Thanks,

Or more pointedly, Canadians don't care about NDP policy. Take a look at any poll done in the last 40 years. Have they even been close to forming government? No. And for good reason.

Yes, Canadian parties are all left of the most left US party. Simple fact. To say that the NDP are the most fiscally responsible party is ridiculous. We are talking federal here and the NDP have never (and never will) been government and therefore can promise anything they like without ever having to worry about dealing with broken promises. Why not just say "98% personal tax cut"? What would it matter? They hold no more relevance than the Communist Party or the Rhino Party. A few seats in the House simply sucks more taxpayers dollars. There are only two contending parties (for the last...oh...many decades) and this will not change until the Liberals implode.

Exactly how many more decades would you like? I'm pretty sure we can all say "never" when it comes to the NDP becoming government.

Yes, unlike the US. If the US used rules of engagement the same way as Pakistan, Omar Kahdr wouldn't be breathing much less trying to get a free pass from Canada. He would've gotten that well deserved bullet behind the ear.

Picking on Pakistan may have been a bigger mistake than the Taliban thought. Consider this: They just poked a stick in the eye of a country that could care less about international convention or rules of engagement. If the paki's capture any of them, what do you think the prisoner's chance of surviving without torture would be? It's not like we're going to hear about the lack of human rights given them, or prison conditions not being up to standards. Unlike the US or Canada, there will be little international condemnation of Pakistan's actions, and even if there is, I'm sure they could care less. This is akin to one drug gang doing a drive-by on another drug gang. Rules don't matter. Revenge does. Gotta respect the Paki method of dealing with things.

Okay, lets qualify this before we argue both sides to death. We need a scale that we both understand. Are you okay using the US as a marker? All political parties in this country are far to the left of even the Democrats in the States. If we use Cuba, then we're all to the right. The Cons and the Libs are very different (in political leanings), you just can't tell right now because Iggy can't decide where he is. If we take track records as truth, let's look at Trudeau the Criminal or the possibly-soon-to-be-coronated Bob Rae. That is what I am basing my statement on, so if you and I have a difference of opinion, use that as a reference point.

You do realize that there are no "right" or "center-right" parties in Canada? The Conservatives are center-left, the Liberals are considerably more center-left, the NDP are out in left field and everyone else makes the NDP look like they're in the middle of the spectrum. Liberals and NDP will never unite under the current leadership (meaning leaders AND MP's). They were elected on their own political merits and it would be suicide for them to say "just kidding, I'm actually more like .......". The only hope the "left" has is for the right to split (even ever so slightly) and have a "right wing" party take part of the Cons vote and show hard right voters there is an option. This is what happened when Reform became a real entity and, no doubt, what keeps Stephen Harper up at night.

Hmmm... Maybe as but not as No doubt, she's not nearly as talented as Kimmy.

Wow, you must think Harper is doing a hell of a job then! Good for you.

I agree that a chimp most likely couldn't do it. However, I for one am willing to give the Hooters girl a chance. (as long as I get to be on the selection committee)

Of course he has. No one can be that educated and that much of a political animal without attracting voters. There was that guy at O'Flannagan's just off Yonge St. I heard that he likes Mike.

It is also possible with a majority that the House would vote to exclude any party from the HofC that does not attempt to be a federal one (running candidates in more than one province - two - six - all - whatever). This type of suggestion has been suggested and supported across all party lines (except the Bloc obviously). Personally, I would love to see it but can imagine it becoming an argument of "slippery slopes". If Harper can obtain a majority with very little support from Kwebek, then he will have done something that is unheard of. I agree that this would completely change the dynamics of Canadian federal politics.

Actually, I have worked on all three sites and every one of them has above-average security (which works on law abiding citizens). The right to protest (!) does not extend that far. Are you trying to say that if you don't personally have No Trespassing signs on your yard, me and some buddies can exercise our Right to Assemble in your living room in front of your tv? Really? Excellent! See you Thursday. There is a little trick to the Charter and you know it. Nowhere does it say that any of these rights and freedoms give anyone the ability to break the law of their own volition. These Greenpeace meatheads are smoking too much pot if they think that they will be able to continue this bs on upgrader/processor sites unchallenged. The oil companies have more than enough money to hire security en masse and will do so in a heartbeat. Their little message ended up being "we want change, but we don't want to have to have and discussions with the big, bad oil companies or the press or half to explain ourselves, etc...."

Of course, the nasty little secret is the definition of "dependant", eh? Family Sponsorship So only one working person (or at least one that managed to get in the country legally) is required and then, guess what?....that person can bring the whole damn clan. No limit on number of children Legal spouse/common law other Adopted/orphaned family member Two sets of parents Two sets of grandparents Do you think that one Tim Horton's worker can afford to pay for the whole damn clan? No, but I he knows that Canadian taxpayers can.

(madmax) There's a big surprise.

Why can't you answer a simple question Dobbin??????? Nobody asked if the Tories could be trusted. Nobody asked if you expected Harper to call a snap election. Nobody asked if there was a loss of confidence. You were asked if the Liberals still wanted an election or if they were just goading. Would you please try to actually answer something without using the words "Harper", "Tories", or "rabid, whatever whatever..."?

I know, I was just poking at you. It always amazes me, though, how things so totally unrelated to politics are played on (ie. cancer survivor). This does not make him a better candidate, but the "pull the heartstrings" thing does seem to have influence on some voters.

(to paraphrase a commercial)...didn't he also invent gravy, free a million billion trillion refugees, write the dictionary, and drive an eco-friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children? Should be a shoe in.

Perhaps it is a necessary reaction to all of the 100% unaccountable under-performers that have dominated the teaching profession for decades while being protected by a semi-militant union. This is a forseeable outcome when kids are graduating without the ability to read at a secondary school level and the public (or private PTA in your case) decides that they've had enough. Pressure is brought to bear on the school board and the hammer comes down on all (even the "good" teachers as you claim to be). As for the issue of not deducting for late assignments, that is the way the education system is moving. It turns my stomach, but it's a fact.

The questions is, why are we not doing away with the parole system completely? Sentenced to 10 years ---> you serve 10 years. Life means life. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get out early for good behavior, it just means that there is no automatic release...no right to serve only a portion of your time. Exceptions to this would include any life sentence. No getting out at any point. Hence the term life imprisonment. If convicted of, say, second degree murder then judges should be using truth in sentencing...2nd degree=25 years or whatever. 1st degree=bye bye, see you at your funeral. This would do away with all of the extra credit for time served nonsense. Credit given equals exactly the length of time that you served in pre-trial custody (and wouldn't mean a damn thing to a 1st degree murderer). Sex offenders get a sentence of, lets say, 15 years for rape, but will not get out unless they prove that they have changed (after a minimum of 15 years served, and since they can't change, they won't get out anyway). Zero recividism. Really, who cares anymore what sentence is handed down following conviction? The numbers don't mean a damn thing and everyone knows it. This fuels public unrest when a murderer or a child rapist is walking around society after a handful of years or less. Time to fix it. Perhaps a Conservative needs to stand up in the House of Commons and make a statement such as: