olpfan1

As far as Toews goes.. he was always a hypocrite, he's a self proclaimed christian family man always speaking of the traditional family..traditional family in Toewsland must be cheating on your wife with a woman 30 years younger and getting her pregnant Does anyone also remember him being charged by elections Canada in Manitoba? It's not really a surprise he said this, the man is scum

It matches the rhetoric in the U.S, this is U.S style politics at its worst GWB saying you're either with us or against us ( Iraq War) Obama calling anyone who isn't a Democrat the "enemy"

Saudis get a pass because of their oil supply to the West... which is wrong, we shouldn't even have dialogue with this regime

I know about the boundary dispute but not the Monroe Doctrine

Thank goodness for the courts..they are our only saving grace from Harper, the dude didn't even do anything that should warrant house arrest or prison..it wasn't his gun! But I am glad the judge gave him just house arrest This doesn't bode well for Harpos future mandatory Marijuana sentences http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-court-rules-mandatory-minimum-sentence-unconstitutional-in-gun-case/article2336816/ An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck down a mandatory sentence of three years for a firearm offence, saying the sentence would have had grave consequences for a defendant who intended no harm. Madam Justice Anne Molloy said it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to impose a three-year sentence on the accused, Leroy Smickle, who was arrested while posing with a loaded gun and striking a “cool” pose. Instead, Judge Malloy gave Mr. Smickle a one-year conditional sentence to be served under house arrest. The decision is almost certain to be appealed, putting the courts on a collision course with the Harper government, which has made mandatory minimum sentences a cornerstone of its tough-on-crime justice platform. Judge Malloy said that the presence of handguns in the community is a grave concern, but that Mr. Smickle’s bad judgment fell well short of dangerous criminal intent. “To impose such an onerous punishment would, in my view, be grossly disproportionate to what Mr. Smickle deserves for a single act of bad judgment and foolishness,” she said. Judge Malloy found there was evidence that Mr. Smickle, 30, was holding a loaded firearm when police suddenly smashed down the door of a relative’s apartment where he was staying. Police were executing a search warrant on the owner of the apartment, Mr. Stickle’s cousin, who was believed to be in possession of illegal weapons. Judge Malloy said that Mr. Stickle did not intend to threaten the police, but was merely engaged in the “very foolish act” of posing with the gun while holding his laptop computer in his other hand. The judge cited the fact that Mr. Stickle, who is right-handed, was holding the gun in his left hand when police burst in. She also said that Mr. Stickle was so startled by the intrusion that he dropped both the gun and his laptop. Judge Malloy said the mandatory sentence of three years was out of line with Mr. Smickle’s offence, and that elements of the law containing the sentence are “irrational and arbitrary.” She added that a three-year prison sentence would have a harsh effect on his fiancée and a young child he has from a previous relationship. He would also face great difficulty finding a job after surviving the rigours of three years in prison, she said.

54-40 is a good Canadian band! Seen them live

It wouldn't be fair! My link

How much would you like to bet this isn't about Child Porn? It will be the Cons keeping a tabs on any Canadian they deem to be a threat against them in the guise of "suspected of obtaining Child Pornography" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/tories-on-e-snooping-stand-with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers/article2336889/ Mr. Toews will introduce Lawful Access legislation, as it is commonly called, into the House of Commons Tuesday. Previous versions of the bill failed to make it through minority parliaments, but now that the Conservatives have a majority it is almost certain to pass. The bill will require Internet service providers to store and to make available to the government and police forces information on the Internet activity of their customers. Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant. Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s privacy watchdog, is fiercely opposed to the legislation, which she calls “surveillance by design.” Federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart and other provincial privacy commissioners have also raised concerns. But when Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia attacked the Conservatives for “preparing to read Canadians' emails and track their movements through cellphone signals” – which does appear to be a severe distortion of the bill’s powers – Mr. Toews’s counterattack was fierce. “As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier,” he told the House. “We are proposing to bring measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide police with the lawful tools that they need. “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” During the 2004 election campaign, the Conservatives issued and then quickly withdrew a press release suggesting then-prime minister Paul Martin supports child pornography because his government wasn’t, in the eyes of Conservatives, sufficiently tough on crime. When confronted by reporters, Mr. Harper refused to back down. “I'm not going to, in any way, give the Liberal Party any break in its record on child pornography,” the Conservative Leader maintained. “It is disgraceful, they have had multiple opportunities to do something about it, and they have refused.” Mr. Martin leapt at the gaffe. “Look, this is personal. I am a father and I am a husband, and he has crossed the line. He should apologize,” he maintained. Many observers credit the exchange with a last-minute surge that returned the Liberals to office in a minority government. Now, it would appear, the Conservatives are once again lumping opponents of their law-and-order program in with pedophiles and pornographers. Ms. Stoddart and Ms. Cavoukian have indicated they will wait to see the legislation Tuesday before offering comment.

It would have been unprovoked and the US would look like the enemy to the world It would have done them more harm it sounds like than it was worth

A few months a go I came across the word "Deist" and realized I shared the exact same views..that we have a creator but that the creator does not interfere in our lives, the proof of the creator is the universe, and organized religion is a lie Lately I've been hearing from American Republican / Tea Party Politicians that America was founded on Christianity which strikes me as odd because of the research I did it shows the most important Founding Fathers were Deists Benjamin Franklin George Washington James Madison (Father of the Constitution) Thomas Jefferson Could it not be said that The Founding Fathers were Deists? Or could it be said that the Founding Fathers were Deists & Christians

The British were still in control then.. the U.S wouldn't have wanted another war with the British

Basically War of 1812 was a sideshow for the Napoleanic Wars in Europe The British could not lose to the French so they made US sailors fight for them, desperately searched American ships for deserters, forced the U.S to stop trade with the French through illegal means all in their effort to beat the French Don't we all feel used

They would have been repelled for a 4th time if they did

I don't understand, are you talking about Jack Miner or the U.S Civil War?

I read one of the reasons was because "The British military support for American Indians who were offering armed resistance to the expansion of the American frontier to the Northwest" Isn't that kind of what the U.S did during the Revolutionary War? They tried to get the French in Canada to fight with them

Yes, they helped U.S gain independence from Britain I think, but you don't poke the bear unless you want to get mauled

Which makes sense because whatever U.S was selling France was being used in the war against the British

Wasn't the smartest idea for U.S to stab Britain in the back and do business with it's main enemy France That is why they were taking American sailors hostage... and I don't blame them

I thought (U.S Marshall) ..(Criminal) key words would tip people off.. I don't like spoiling the premise of a show that much

I think the world should tell both Iran & Israel to shut the hell up

Didn't this start because U.S was selling weapons to both Britain & France during the Napoleanic Wars? Thus turning the British against them

I was going by an article I read on GlobeandMail ..but a poster posted the same article from Yahoo! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/war-1812-important-because-kept-u-government-snooki-090017088.html OTTAWA - The War of 1812 may be one of the world's oddest conflicts, if only because both sides are confident they won. A new survey suggests Canadians and Americans have vastly divergent attitudes towards the border war that broke out in 1812 and bumbled along for three years.

I was under the impression the British burnt down the Capitol House

The + 1 is invisible, only a few people can see it

When I meet the right girl