blueblood

Two senior police officers know not to bring ipperwash part 2. Given how police officers get thrown under the bus when they take action, why would they roll the dice? The public has gotten what they wished for. Boo hoo

Not necessarily. Ask Zimbabwe

Keynes was an idiot

Are you a self defense instructor now? The G20 was far more organized and had the manpower to deal with protestors. If you will also note that during the first day the protestors got to run rough shod all over Toronto looting businesses and torching police cars because people like you want excessive checks and balances, yet you guys complain about the police not doing their jobs, yet when they quickly restore order using justifiable force you bitch about them being heavy handed. The g20 is another reason why they're not going to intervene on this because a bunch of armchair quarterbacks pissed and moaned. It's heads I win tails you lose with you. If you know how policing should be done, walk to the nearest police station and pick up an application.

All right, you go into a situation where your outnumbered 10 to 1 to effect an arrest. Oh by the way your on tape so your going to be scrutinized if you have to use force. Then if you manage to arrest and lay charges, have fun in court. Why would anyone in their right mind risk being swarmed only to be thrown under the bus by people like you in court or worse yet an inquiry? You guys wanted to bog police down with policy; Bon appetit.

No they're not, if they didn't commit crimes they wouldn't be incarcerated.

Not to mention set a dangerous precedent. Sends the message if any mayor or reeve wants an audience with the prime minister to complain about funding, that's how you go about it. She's upset the money is slowing down and her dirty laundry is public.

Oh I don't know, I'm pretty sure the viatnamese who fled south Vietnam on rafts have some pretty good horror stories of their own along with e Ukrainians during the Mongol invasion.

What these people don't realize is that they are rolling the dice when it comes to pissing off the electorate. If the majority of the electorate wants something to happen it will happen, and that may include treaty rights going bye bye. Just ask the rich people in the USA about how they are going to enjoy their tax hike. (I disagree with the tax hike on just the 1%, but that's for another thread)

The frustration is that there is a fundamental flaw with how the Indian act is written and the lie you guys hear that the treaty system will lead you to the promised land. The fact that so many reserves live in poverty is exhibit a of why socialism is a complete joke. Where are the pro business chiefs in all of this. I haven't heard a peep out of chief Darcy bear, why? His reservesunemployment rate is 4% and they dont need any federal money. The fact that Dakota whitecap can go from 70 percent u employment to 4 percent unemployment in less than 20 years shows how incompetent chief spence is especially with a diamond mine adjacent to her reserve. Here is no excuse why her reserve should be in poverty. None.

I believe chief Darcy bear would agree with you. Here's an example of a properly run reserve that doesn't have the benefit of a diamond mine. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/01/24/sk-whitecap-dakota-120124.html Good management gets good results.

This deal kicked the can down the road and didn't fix anything but raid rich people's bank accounts. It's a terrible message to send - keep acting irresponsibly, someone else will pay for it.

No, I'm saying the rhetoric against rich people and that they should have their taxes raised when no one else gets tax increases is akin to Chavez et al. Not only that there isn't much in the way for spending cuts. I'd say let the fiscal cliff happen. Everyone pays like they should and important spending cuts take place. That rhetoric of tax the rich is straight up garbage. Rich people provide jobs, capital for investment, spend ridiculous amounts of money, and pay taxes. That rhetoric is a slap in the face of all the contributions of those people who do all those things saying that they should do more while close to half the country doesn't contribute at all, yet has the nerve to ask for more. And they wonder why all sorts of money is leaving the country for overseas. That left wing entitlement attitude is cause for a lot of problems. First they were entitled to all live in houses that they had no business buying, now they are entitled to rich people's money. That's sickening. Cripes a big reason the USA has gotten to the size, power, and wealth is people all over the world throughout the course of history fleeing that type of nonsense. You posted a chart of USA growth during Eisenhower and his 90% tax on the rich. Growth during the mid to late 1800's was greater than that and taxes/spending were minimal. Its frustrating to see people gravitate towards a philosophy which has been proven time and again to be a failure and at the same time criticizing a philosophy that has been successful and is being emulated by rising powers throughout the world. What's stopping at a 5 point tax increase? What's to stop the democrats from implementing more spending and going after the rich to foot the bill? It's a slippery slope.

It's not insanity. The top earners already pay their freight, time for the scrubs to pick up the slack. Regan slashed taxes and compromised by closing a lot of loopholes. Eisenhower had loopholes big enough to drive a bus through. The USA is being outcompeted by lower tax and lower cost jurisdictions and if it doesn't compete he problem still exists. The rhetoric of the democrats is akin to Chavez et al. And we know how that experiment turns out.

It's the rhetoric that's he big issue. The democrats have successfully used the rhetoric that the rich must pay more and are using lynch mob style tactics of a similar but lesser degree used in 1917 Russia, venezuela, et. Al. the rhetoric used also fits the term reality politics. If your going to reset tax rates, reset them all. I think just the loopholes should be closed and spending cut as per bon ams suggestion. The reality is the entitlement attitude is toxic.

The communists went after the "rich" people as well with the same kind of rhetoric, look where it got them Its that dangerous lynch mob mentality that has caused problems for those countries with those people. Ask the people who sail to Florida from Cuba on a raft made out of a door, or the many wealthy emigrants of venezuela. More oil than Alberta and embroiled in poverty, outstanding.

It's the start of a slippery slope. If taxes go up, everyone should foot the bill, it wasn't just the rich that are to blame for this mess. If a person has such an entitlement attitude that they must have a 400,000 house on 30,000 salary, they have blood on their hands as well.

I don't know I haven't been suspended. Discretion and respect go a long way.

Yet property rights aren't in the constitution... The best way to prevent poverty is providing a strong economy and encouraging business growth. Going after rich people doesn't do that. How big does this net have to be?

It's a pretty easy sell when your idea is to pillage 1 percent of the populations wallet while 99 percent of the electorate Get a tax cut. That sell was made in 1917 Russia, Cuba, venezula, etc. Lynch mob politics instead of dealing with reality.

Anyone with one iota of common sense would have Alberta energy companies as part of their investment portfolio. I'll even wager that some of the ndp supporters who have portfolios have energy companies in them and there's nothing wrong with that. It's really a no brainer.

Agreed, we can look at Asia vs. Africa when they were both on par on the poverty scale. One went the government funding route, one went with foreign investment. One has many people joining the middle class, one is still rife with poverty...

No, it's a little thing called discretion, try using it sometime. For example, mr. Canada and his rant on election night warranted reporting, respectable posters using adjectives time to time as part of their arguments doesn't warrant reporting. That's stifling debate, and to report people who disagree with you is getting to be childish. This isn't kindergarten where you run to the teacher because someone called someone else a name. If you don't like the fact that almost everyone in the forum uses labels in one form or another, the onus lies on you to leave, not force half the community left, right, and centre who DO conduct themselves in a respectable manner out.

Good god! It's an adjective, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. I'm not even on wyly's side in the debate, but he isn't reporting those who use the alarmist label. Life's tough wear a helmet.

in 1860 to 1910 the USA also didn't print money and increase spending to get itself out of trouble either. All they did was let the market correct itself and they went back at it.