blueblood

how about deporting all the illegal immigrants in the cities then too. I like how you pick and choose rights for your own benefit. Are western Canadians second class citizens? Are western Canadian beliefs second class too?

Yes in fact they are terrible people . They advocate nothing but some nut like this dad going and killing someone because his daughter used some drugs. Judge jury and executioner , all in one. The girl was "forced into it, that is common knowledge" . It is? Not in any report that I read. She MAY have believed if she kept on doing that she could die, but none of us, including her dumb daddy , knew or knows for sure. Talk about abdicating personal responsibility . Seems that the court and jury agrees with one of us. I wonder why? Liberal minded judge forces jury to find defendant guilty. I wonder what would have happened if the father got killed by the skid? I'll bet the farm that the sentance would have been a lot less due to his "problems" and "situation". This is one case where the father had good reason to kill the drug dealer and he has the support of a large proportion of Canadians. Better that this nut be around, than the drug dealer. Who knows how many lives that drug dealer ruined, who knows how many people would have OD'd because of him. Better the drug dealer go than some kids.

The girl was forced into it, that is common knowledge. Had the father not intervened, she'd be dead. The father killed the guy for forcing his daughter's hand and ruining her life. Are the scores of Canadians that support him terrible people too?

Women get arrested, and they get processed by women, thereby x amount of women are always needed, as men are not "qualified" to fit that needed criteria by the RCMP. My hiring qualifications would be how well they do compared to others in the process, yours is quotas for minorities and women and it doesn't matter if they are less qualified than others in the recruiting process. This attitude is pathetic and is why our country is in the mess its in now. Best person for the job bottom line. My axe to grind is that why should a minority or a women get a job just because they are a minority or a woman.

So it doesn't matter that she was coerced into the desicion? With that logic, you might as well let some religious teachers push their political and religious views on a grade 10 class, after all they can make their own desicions, their minds aren't impressionable . That reason is that like most girls at that age they are extremely selfish and narrow minded. Being under that nutbar's mind control doesn't help. Where would you rather be if you were in her shoes at the time, at a place where the bf is "madly in love with you" and is catering to you or at a place where you are in constant shit for being high? -> that's what she's thinking. Her father was not a psycho and a respected guy in the community, it was after she went into rehab and went back to the "drug jungle" that her father finally snapped. I believe he should have not only been acquitted but given a commendation by the RCMP. There was no suspicions about this drug dealer. I feel having drug dealers like this who coerce and manipulate young people is much less constructive in our society than people stepping up and putting a stop to it.

We're not talking about barns (I'll refrain from the obvious reference to back alleys here). We're talking about hospitals. The difference is who's paying. Why is it okay for medicare to fund some choices (such as giving birth to a child) but not others (aborting one)? Good question 1) People who think abortion should be illegal would be outraged. (personally I think its wrong, but shouldn't be illegal) For the sake of keeping things mellow as they are now it would be best not to suggest funding it. 2) I'd be scared some people would view it as a free option to birth control, there might be an STD epidemic. Also to pay for someone else's birth control is proposterous, religious groups would be mad and I don't want my tax dollars to go to keep some whore from getting pregnant. 3) I'd say that when you make the choice to get pregnant, the baby is coming out anyways and the woman is going to need medical care in order to give birth, much like a guy breaking his leg, it happened and he needs help. IMO with an abortion you have more of a "want" choice (whether the baby comes out or dies and getting pregnant or just getting pregnant) btw this is a weak argument, but you are asking for any answer. 4) I'd say a woman going through labour needs a lot more medical attention then a woman going through an abortion during the first trimester. A second question would be why should abortions be covered under health care when ambulance services, dental services, and vision would not be?

My first car was my parent's 15 year old volkswagen. I used it for 7 years while I went to school, sold it to another student who used it through school and as far as I know it is still on the road. In Quebec the emissions that sends out is likely comparable to murder in terms of public scorn. I'd hate to see my truck there

The defendant got nailed with 2nd degree murder and is going to jail for a long time.

The father did not sacrifice his freedom so that his daughter could live, he sacrificed the freedom of the young man. That sure as hell is not a hero in my book. Lets look at this....we have parents(s) on both sides. We have two kids , one young, one not so young. These "kids" were doing drugs. So the drugs cancel each other out. But only one is dead? Murder first degree, plain and simple. Young man coerces and forces drugs upon daughter. He puts daughter in downward cycle. Why should he be free to do that? The father didn't go out at a random guy and said "you do drugs you die now" It was more like "you forced my daughter into your mess and are the root cause of ruining her life, without you she would be fine." You can't blame her friends, it was her friends that mailed the letter to her parents explaining the grave situation the daughter was in. Had the boyfriend been alive, she would have more than likely OD'd. It was the lesser of two evils. The boyfriend was also a convicted drug dealer on top of it. Your situation doesn't relate to this case at all. No he sacrificed himself to save his daughter, it was only a matter of time before that drug dealer would have done something crazy.

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. It would make sense that those arguing a case like this would see both sides of the argument. I know that the woman has a right to a freedom of conscience and has a right to do whatever she wants. I believe though, that the child should at least get a chance to live. The Robert Latimer case fills my mind during this whole abortion thing. I'm looking out for the little guy.

This case is absolutely bizarre - an addict is never an addict because of one person. His daughter made the choice to do drugs because she wanted to do drugs - not because this particular dealer forced her to. If the circumstances were different and that particular dealer was doing time you can be assured that the daughter in question would have found her drug elsewhere.What happened here is her father's extreme actions jolted her out of her cycle of self destruction and made her realize that she was screwing up other people's lives too. I hope she stays clean but there are no gurantees. That said this raises an interesting question: How many fathers would be willing spend 10 years in jail if they beleived that would save their daughter's life? This boyfriend was a nutbar, It's safe to say he forced her into it. Of couse it's her final choice, but mind control and coercion can be very powerful motivators.

Viewed as a hero? Really? Wow, just plain wow! Hmm, the guy loved and cared about his daughter very much. She made a bad choice and being a young and foolish and selfish girl it was corroding her. The dad couldn't bear to see his daughter go down the tubes because of her boyfriend. The boyfriend had uttered threats too. The daughter was put into forced rehab, and after went to the boyfriend's house. This was the defendant's breaking point. He went to the defendant's house armed (one could say he armed himself to defend himself, but that's highly unlikely). He seen the defendant and then snapped. He literally went into a rage and unloaded his whole clip into the guy. You can google the whole case if you like. With that being said, the daughter turned her life around, she graduated high school and manages a store in the mall. The defendant sacrificed his freedom so that her daughter could live. That's a hero in my book.

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

Well you were saying small males got advantages due to their size and in the RCMP they don't. If a woman has the exact same requirements as the man she should do the job. This is a lifesaving biz, if you can't cut it physically you shouldn't be in it bottom line. If the tall man is more suited to the job, he should be chosen over the short man that's called competition, best person for the job. They still have a height requirement for the musical ride of 5'10, if your not that height man or woman your shit out of luck. Recruiting minorities over more qualified people is ridiculous, one of the pillars of the RCMP is true equality, everyone is the same, it shouldn't matter what color or sex you are it matters on the job you do, your qualifications, and your skill. We should not have a watered down police force just for the sake of pandering to minorities, it holds the country back. We accept minorities in this country, they can expect a well qualified police officer of any color to uphold the law. Good for her, if she can work as well as the guys and do the same job as the guys then there's no reason she can't be there. She had better well earn the same pay too.

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example. red herring There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action. Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please. All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made. RCMP You can take that pathetic small man argument and stick it up your ass. Geoffery has you hooped on this one. If this isn't affirmative action I don't know what is.

Umm according to your numbers 31% constitutes the other side. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you show disrespect to the other side of the spectrum, it makes for much weaker debating. The other point is a matter of opinion, theres no right answer in this game. You have no idea how offesive your commets are to religious pro-life supporters, are they not people too? do they not have a right to express an opinion? You keep saying individual rights and all that, lots of people believe an unborn child is an individual and should be given rights how about that. How about the 31% of peoples rights to an opinion, according to you they don't deserve one. On top of that you want the 31% to help foot the bill for abortions, what's next we have to foot the bill for facelifts and boob jobs? Making people pay for something that you want is proposterous. In my opinion an abortion is a want. So are pro-life supporters right to express an opinion, lots are women themselves. You get the right to self determine and pro-life supporters get the right to bitch. You can't pick and choose rights to what best suits you.

Water polo? Curling?

CPI'm amazed however how CP is so cavalier about Albertan voters. It's as if they don't count. CP also implies that the Tories are somehow an Albertan party. In any case, there won't be an election any time soon so this is all academic. The US spin of the OP is just weird. Good point. If the tories put out a "good" environment plan, they might get the surge into majority land.

I don't blame them either, they're using their heads. I don't like it though, but i don't blame them. Other than that I agree. My background is ag, not finance. I have no clue about tax structures and the like.

Functionally? The costs of trucking oil, from the west as far as Ottawa and shipping/trucking from Hibernia for the eastern part of the country does make us functionally self-sufficent. Trucking such distances would still be cheaper than building a pipeline. Yes, not all the oil consumed in Canada is produced in Canada. But that is for cost savings. In a time of war, the only real situation in which functional self-sufficiency comes into play, Canada could meet all of our oil needs. Trucking are you serious, the roads in Canada are shit as it is. No throw the oil on a train and be done with it. You could barge it across the great lakes and up/down the St. Lawrence too.

It's also one of the most unscrupulous outfits i've ever seen. During BSE they made a killing, they now control around 50% of the herd in Alberta. Those guys are brilliant. I haven't noticed the price of steak or meat changing too much since the small time cattle producers were forced out. Now I ask you what's better for the economy, the money flowing south to Cargill or staying in the Canadian economy with the cattle producers? Cargill has Canadian competitors in every aspect of its ventures, naturally its better to support them as it benefits our economy directly. You are putting a lot of trust in multinationals, but do they contribute to what they take out? I am a strong believer in that small to medium business ran smartly is the most efficient way and at the same time the most beneficial

i'd say its better than letting the oil sit in the ground and those guys out their rotting on welfare. from a fiscal side the gov't could make a pile of money at this. Who knows the gov't might be able to drop taxes and be closer to self sufficiency.

How does a retailer differ than the gov't in ripping off the consumer, the consumer is still getting ripped off is he not? The consumer can buy the retailer and earn money from it's profits. The consumer always loses with a tax unless they are on some form of welfare. I can't buy the government, legally at least. Unless the retailer is privately owned and won't go public, does Cargill ring a bell?

If the Libs pulled a stunt like that off, the Tories would blast them apart. What an election platform for the CPC -> "what do you think of your tax dollars going to China? Did it make Global warming go away? Choose your Canada" Not even the CBC would be able to save the Libs from that.

Indeed we could be. But it's far more efficient for Canadians, Americans and Europeans for us to export from the West and import in the East. I'd say spend the surplus on a big ass rig to put in newfoundland, then turn that rig into a co-op. That would help out the east a lot. If the gov't won't help out private guys get the oil out then they can do it themselves.