uOttawaMan

Bah.. this is why I wish that NDP proposal could be in place by now (doesnt matter who gets it there, just get it there) that makes people run in a by-election before they can cross the floor.

Come to UOttawa, its chill. lol

I say we should all just have a glass of milk and oreo's, and watch hockey. (Because beer and chips cost too much..)

You sir are the one who sounds like a fool. If anyone wanted to bomb anything in Canada, they could easily do so , right now. There are NO security measures in place. You want to know why we are still safe? Do you really? Then look at this cold truth. We are safe, because the terrorists can use us. They can use Canada as a base of operations, as an access point to the US. So by attacking Canada, what do they gain? Nothing. Increased security and immigration tightening, therefore causing them to lose a valuable base. So there may be terrorist cells in our cities, but they arent planning to attack us, they are planning to attack the US. And just because your post made me want to smash my head into the wall of ignorance it built and make it crumble, I'm a NDP left wing 19 year old, beer drinking flag waving Canadian, who is in the Army Reserve, ready to "defend" this country, (if taking a gun and driving around in APC's can be called a defence). In closing, after viewing your posts in this thread tml, the only thing i can say, is you sir, are a certified asshat.

The fact is , a baton , pepper spray, and a kevlar vest are on the whole usless unless we are defending ourselves against someone who is unarmed or has a knife. Any caliber of weapon is far beyond our self-defense measures.

This thread is a flame-tacular example of ignorance.

Time for Jack Layton to switch to the Liberals and lead them.

We are already equipped with pepper spray and a baton. What I'm saying is this, students make up a massive part of Border Services summer work force. So either: A) No more students working the actual border crossings, which means you need to hire a hella lot of part time "professionals" because you cant hire full time guards, they are just taking there vacation time in the summer, there is no need for more guards. or Stricter hiring practices and training would need to be in place. Training a university student to use a gun is no different that training a fresh recruit into the Armed Forces in the use of firearms. Just because they are younger doesnt mean they cant handle it, they just need proper training, same as their "experienced " counterparts would need, because none of them are ready for guns at the moment either. The problem there lies, ending school on April 30th, training runs into mid-May before students hit the job. And thats a shortened program, the reason why students do not have the authority to arrest. If you tack on firearms training (to go with the safe handling and discharge of fireams) training we already have to do, it would be probbably close to June before students started work, 2 months after they were hired. Leaving them just over 3 months to work on the actual job, June-Labour Day. This is a problem that cannot be solved quickly , they have to do some serious planning on how this would affect border services.

The fact is, the same thing has occured here , hundreds of years ago when people realised they could challenge the Church doctrine and not have the wrath of God strike them down. Same-sex marriage was legalised, and the sun did not stop rising, society did not break down into mass violence. Too much time has passed, with nothing bad happening for Harper to do anything about this law. You can say , but OMG what might be next? Polyigomous(sic) marriages? Who knows, it very well might be. But to try and debate this case on what "might" happen in the future rather than its merits is simply illogical. So same sex-marriage is here to stay, and thats fine, I had no problem with it in the first place.

I'm a University Student, one of the the 30-40 or so in my region that Customs (now Border Services) hires every year. The training involved is 5 weeks for summer students, including use of force training. So if we are to be armed, we need more training time, in an already short work period.

It's all good.. Americans use the term liberal like its dirty, and we use the term neo-con like its dirty. Blah blah noone careess

LOL! Nice

The real question here is if we should care what some U.S "think tank" (of any part of the political system ) thinks? Umm.. nope.

Umm.. because I don't think we should all be sent off to fight and die and put our country in debt to do something that could be achieved through other means kthnx.

This isn't the US, we don't need to know everything about our PM. Some things are private, if it's not life threatening then he should be able to keep it private.

If you would have actually read the comments to the article instead of just throwing your little tantrum you would have seen that there was quite the negative reaction to the article. Completely, and 100% agreed. Shoop, I admit that Ann Coulter is a bomb-thrower, but that is why I like her. I like the fact that someone on my side is willing to get as down and dirty as the Democrats are. I'm tired of the right constantly taking the high road and letting the left walk all over them. However, if you step back and look at what Coulter writes, she is usually dead-on. FTA does nothing but insult conservatives. Also, I find it odd that you claim to be centre-right, but attack one of the most popular conservative writers, Mark Steyn, who is so respected that even the partisan media watchdog (Media Matters) can only come up with one complaint against Steyn--who pumps out an article about every 2nd day. You previously linked to a Islamic terrorist sympathizing website to prove that Steyn was "bad". You previously told me not to link to the Western Standard, a conservative website in Western Canada. And now you link to a 3 page article mocking Coulter's sex life to prove how bad she is. And you tell me to chill? this is a dandy.. can you please cite one example of the Democrates being "dirty" or throwing out blatant lies like Coulter does? And the Republicans (or conservatives) taking the highroad? hilarious. ahh.. erm.. Howard Stern? I'm a lefty and that statement you just made opened us up for a hella lot of flaming.. because that was just ignorant.

Lots of provinces don't have resources selling at $80/barrel US

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true. The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change. That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

You need both a left and a right wing to fly a plane.

PR would only handicap parliament if parties refused to work together. Hell, if all you want if a majority government, then we might as well do what the earlier guy said, appoint a dictator for life, because during those 4 years, they can do whatever they want to whatever program they want, and set foreign policy anyway they want to. Sure, they might not get re-elected, but they still have total control.

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?

Well hell, let's just banish the other federal parties to oblivion, and just have the Cons and the Libs then. We can be a totally bi-partisan society like our friends to the South, im sure that would make things more democratic and fair. O wait.. NO IT WON'T

Generalize more? The reason they were bad mouthing him is because whether they were right or wrong, they felt he was damaging the education system, so they were trying to protect their jobs and the futures of the children they taught. And even tho I'm left wing, look at who was before Mike Harris..Bob Rae, and who would have thought a NDP party would spend alot? Even during an economic slump? And then.. an Conservative government takes power during an economic upswing, cuts spending all over the place, and now they have a surplus?? Not surprising at all. Then they cut more and more taxes, and Mr.Harris decided to leave. The inept Ernie Eves takes over for a bit, then loses an election. In comes Dalton McGuinty, not the most flamboyant politician ever, and hmm.. his government has to deal with some deficit that has suddenly occured... OMG YOU ARE AWFUL DALTON. Mr.Harris was far from a great premier, using the OPP has his own little play thing was not an encouraging sign, and I can only hope he will stay out of federal politics. O and here's a tip, all politicians talk out of multiple sides of their mouths, all of them. From Harris to McGuinty to Chretien to Martin to Harper to Layton to Duceppe, every last one of them does it.

And why do you not think it's a good idea for the House?? Probably because it would weaken a party you support. So what if a political "party" loses power, they have to much anyway. Make democracy work the way it's supposed to.