blueblood

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

I should hope not, it's not like he's dead, and he will recover. Let him sit out and don't appoint anyone else.

If it is a good idea and is of great importance (such as this issue), then the government is obliged to interfere. What you are asking is whether the government should get involved in putting criminals in jail. Yes, it's a good idea and the government should put them in jail. It's that simple. Yah criminals harm society, high school dropouts don't. So the gov't has no business in affairs like that. That's coming on to totalitarianism there comrade.

What and whom do you feel is urban and rural ? Serious question for you by the way. Take for instance , toronto, regina, montreal , north bay , red deer , etc Pop less than 5000 in one spot, umm if the surrounding area of a town equals or exceeds the poulation of a town, i'll take that as rural.

Yes.

Wouldn't it be easier to tell the judge to take a hike? If she is offended by the X-mas tree, she can sue. I don't like the stupid paintings on the walls at work but it's not up to me to take them off the wall and put them in the janitor's room. How hard is it to say your abusing your power your FIRED!!! Suing someone over a Christmas tree is the definition of cowardice, selfishness, and greed. People who partake in that should spend some time in the slammer for wasting the courts time and for contempt, solve your own problems and suck it up.

Well, if your ballot will change nothing, then you shouldn't vote in the first place. Hence the reason why less than half of Canadians vote in elections. Just vote your conscience and if a lot of people agree with you then your guy will win. which is why polling should be banned, nothing should be able to influence your vote.

It's the whole rural/urban thing over again. Gun control doesn't make sense to rural Canada, we were responsible gun owners and always will be, our crime rate is a testament to that. Gun control makes sense to urban Canada as that's where the irresponsible gun owners are and their crime rate is a testament to that. Should we be punished for something that we doesn't apply to us?

There could be truth to thtis. In the US it's always so close that the outcome is usually within the margin of error. Polls almost always contradict each other. But in our voting climate and people being so disenfrancised with politics, If polls start to say that CPC is doing well, then epople will jump on board. Look at the last election. Martin was ahead of the polls, then after the GST anouncement, amazing harper started to clime up in polls and then people started to jump on board. What would have happened if everyone just blindely went to the polls? We have so much political choice that a lot of people are going to vote for who 'is likely to win' or the 'next contended'. We know this by polling. I feel we just need to reform our practices and let Canadians take back gov't. We can all vote on propositions and have a say. Thus, politicians are working for us the poeple. If we had an electoral college system, then it would force the small parties out and the Bloc would be history. It shouldn't take a poll to get people to jump on board, it should be whether or not you agree with the candidate or not.

Sorry to be a tease...but I really can't divulge anything more detailed than what I have in the previous post. Not that I think you are a Crown Prosecutor, or someone who will send a report to one, who will send it to the guy prosecuting my case...but stranger things have happened. The one true advantage I have as a defence lawyer at trial is that I know my client's version of the events, but no one else does...unless and until I put him on the stand. It would be a really bad idea for me to let any of that information out of the bag on a case that is pending. I promise to tell you what happens though! (assuming my client lets me...they don't always) FTA I see, and I'll assume you have a police report about this too, I was asking questions based on third party testimony, from what you were saying it looked there was a little spin on it. I understand the whole client lawyer fair trial thing and if that's as far as you can go.

HAH, I have you now, my riding is the definition of your backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, our Tory MP is an immigrant from someplace in Asia and he shellacked the Liberal and NDP contenders who were white and Christian. Both those two combined came up to about half the votes that old Inky got. Like I said a Liberal candidate has as much chance of winning in rural Canada as a blizzard has of occuring during Canada day.

I don't think they should conduct polls during elections, it skews things and it sort of predetermines the outcome of the election. I think it would give the other guys a fighting chance.

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not? I know you may think I am being equivocal...but the bottom line is that it depends on the circumstances. I can't really do any better than what I have set out in my previous posts about what factors will be considered in answering your question. Is stabbing someone in the guts a reasonable response to being stung with a stick? Maybe...maybe not. Why don't you tell me? FTA P.S. I have a trial in March where the issue is self-defence. My client pulled a knife on a guy who attempted to get him to fight outside a nightclub and then pursued my client to his house in a cab. Even after my client pulling the knife, the guy still jumped at him and in the ensuing melee, the guy ended up with a minor stab-wound. My client has no criminal record...the guy has a record for assaulting a person outside of the exact same nightclub where this incident originated... I'll let you know what the Provincial Court of Alberta says on the issue! Oh I like these! Why did the guy want to fight your client in the first place? Was it a consentual fight before the knife was pulled or was your client swarmed. Did your client get his clock cleaned? I'd almost say the other guy has a case for self defense in that he thought his life was in danger due to the knife in play. What's disturbing is that he got the knife into the night club. I think all your client should get is the concealed weapon thing, the other guy had a choice to bail out but chose to fight your client anyway, so he's gotta assume some responsibility for himself getting stabbed.

FTA Yes McGuinty has stepped up on this and deplored this. I admire McGuinty. That's the first smart thing I heard him say. The PM should have the power to unappoint judges, there are too many that are running around our country on a power trip, perhaps if they could get canned then it would bring some accountability to that part of the justice system

CBC Radio was reporting today that a cabinet shuffle is expected and Ambrose might be dropped from cabinet. She's a lot more qualified than most other CPC MP's for a cabinet position and should remain in cabinet to balance out the whole gender thing, it's too bad she got skewered on the whole environment thing, a different portfolio will be huge...

Looks like you have already decided. Hmm, Liberal eh, by that list everything looks pretty stinky. Let me think about it. Emerson, Fortier, Raising taxes, (if you believe Preston Manning and Mike Harris), Many uncompleted files above. Well, now that I think about it, why would I want to pay for another election. I don't like any of the above, and they haven't earned their pay yet. Get back to work you lazy politicians. No, they can stay at the job for another 3 to 4 years, and I will be happy. This is where fixed election dates would come in real handy...

Our current first past the post system already concentrates power in populated areas PR wouldn't change that. I also believe in more autonomy to the provinces but that is a different issue. Right now we have representative democracy at both the provincial and federal levels. Politicians make important decisions on our behalf. The problem with our first past the post electoral system is the party balance of the government does not even come close to matching how people vote. Are the results of a close vote really valid when the balance of MPs voting isn't correct in the first place? A PR system would fix that. To protect the East and West from being dominated by central Canada I'd like to see an equal senate with 5 to 8 senators from each province and territory. I have been calling for an elected senate as well but I'm not sure if the people should elect the senate or a proportional house should elect senators. We have to keep in mind that the average Canadian barely graps 1/10th of the issues at election time already. your senate would have to be given more power then they would have to be able to create and pass laws then as is with the house of commons. The thing that scares me about PR is that since our population is so concentrated in urban centres, it gives them more power as they would be fielding MPs, and one has to realize what works in urban canada doesn't work in rural Canada. i don't know how you would divide up the MPs elected just based on popular vote i don't know who they'd be representing. Maybe our ridings are too big and have too many people in them, maybe fielding more MPs with smaller ridings might help. This is one hell of a debacle.

Our country is much too vast and diverse to have PR, if that were so there would be more power focused in central Canada, no I think that more administrative and financial power should be given to the provinces and that the federal gov't should be strictly about foreign policy, the army and the RCMP.

How the hell is welfare a right, if I work off farm, part of my job wages will go into E.I. if I get fired from said job or quit, I won't be able to get the E.I. due to the fact that I own land. Part of my wage I will never ever get to see, why should I subsidize someone else if they get fired or quit? Some, and myself included are saying why saddle a guy who is getting ahead with the burden of this kid and family, it's not our fault that they are in that mess. But I don't see why we should punish a kid for quitting school by taking away his driver's liscence, that driver's liscence might be his only way he can have a shot at a living.

The point I'm trying to make is that society is obsessed about having to spend piles of money on appearances, for both sexes.

Maybe that guy wouldn't be successful at a bar because he doesn't project the kind of "good provider" cues that urban club and bar-going women are looking for. A guy who walks into the urban bar setting who exhibits the cues of a good provider (as ruggedly goodlooking as the guy in your example, but wearing a suit and tie) would probably attract a number of women there. The guy in your example might be extremely successful in another kind of setting, like one where the women are looking for fellow blue-collar or rural types. The suit and tie guy in a rural bar could very well leave without getting a single phone number because he doesn't fit the profile of a good provider in that community. In a rural bar, a suit and tie guy would get a lot of attention due to the fact that he stands out and is different. a guy wearing faded blue jeans and a t-shirt out of a case of coors in a city bar will get snide looks. Society sucks that way. Well I don't go to a bar anymore as the music is getting too loud and me being older than everyone else. But I will say this. You and a crew of your friends go to a bar, you dress like I mentioned, and one of your friends dresses like a preppy for one night and switch dressing styles another night, and you tell me which method works better.

I agree. This is not a compromise. It lacks legitimacy as it still requires a prime minister approval. Getting rid of it probably is better policy for Canadians. That would require a change to the Constitution. There is no way that Provinces with large numbers of Senators per capita are going to agree to equality. Harper should sound out the Premiers to see if he could get enough support to abolish it. If not, this is about all that can be done. i thought the house of commons was about equal representation of the population, as geoffrey puts it if it reflected regional interests, then it would be better. Something that serves population and regional interests is the most fair.

Doubtful. I don't know that I ever heard of a government that didn't have allegiances resembling political parties. You might have allegiances, but they are a hell of a lot more flexible and less "dictorial" than a politcal party, if you don't agree with something you can disagree without being punished. It's a much better principle.

It just means that things would be decided in backrooms and you wouldn't know what secret allegiances there were. It is how city hall works... So does partisan politics, I only need to refer to the present mandate of the CPC to confirm that. At least without parties there is somewhat of a chance.

I notice you refer to night club. Not daylight club. you know what I mean, the night club was arbitrary, you can go to a beach, or a university campus, they can compete with women in ads too.