gc1765

Yes, mistakes are "impossible" to happen, especially when unions are involved. I could just as easily speculate that Harper himself gave the boxes to Mark Holland as a birthday present...but that doesn't mean either one of us is correct

Did the boxes have the owner's name and address and telephone taped clearly on the outside of it. This is the question I keep asking, and it keeps getting evaded. If yes, please show me where. If no, your analogy is nothing but a lie.

All this talk about not needing to open the boxes to find out who they belonged to.... ...and yet no one has been able to show me any indication or "clear markings" about who they belonged to. Still waiting...

Exactly. If I found an umarked (and no a few numbers doesn't count as marked) box in my office, I'd open it to see what's inside before I decided what to do with it. What else would you do? Throw it in the garbage without even knowing what's inside?

There seems to be a lot of polls recently... "The Conservatives, after surging to the "magic" majority number of 40% in the immediate aftermath of last week’s budget, have dropped four points to 36% — the same level of support they secured when they won a minority victory in the Jan. 23, 2006, election. The Liberals were up two points to 31% since last week's poll, the NDP was up one point to 15%, the Green party was up two points to 9%, and the Bloc Québécois dropped one point to 8%." Link

Show me where there is any indication of who the boxes belonged to.

"Clearly Marked"? All I see is some rather plain looking boxes with a few numbers on the side. There is no indication of who owns such boxes. ...at least I didn't see anything in that video that was clearly marked.

What exactly did that video prove?

Jim Hart does not deny what he said (which is written elsewhere in this thread). If Jim Hart admits it is true then it's not hard to imagine that it probably is true. That's not exactly a huge leap.

I suppose technically the government is responsible for that land, and it would be policed by police who are paid by the government. Whether or not they actually care about the safety of that land, they SHOULD care about it, as they are the ones responsible. Just like if it was privately owned, the owner should care about his/her land, but that won't necessarily be true in practice.

I think Figleaf's point was that Stockwell Day is the minister responsible for the RCMP while the RCMP is deciding whether to take another look. Also, it wasn't all known before. It was concluded that he accepted money, but that it had no bearing on his resignation. The new evidence, if true, shows that his resignation was in fact contingent upon payment, which would be a crime under the criminal code.

Therein lies the problem. Ok, why not have a policeman guarding every square foot of Canada (or the world)?

I'm confused by your question. No one is guarding/attending most streets at 3am anyways. There aren't enough police/guardians/attendants to guard every street at every hour.

Consider two scenarios: 1. Someone gets drunk, gets in their car, drives recklessly, speeding down an empty street at 3am. Luckily, no one is actually on the street, so the person makes it home safe. 2. Someone gets drunk, gets in their car, drives recklessly, speeding down a street at 3 am, just as someone else is crossing the road. The driver hits that person and kills them. Why should the person in scenario 2 be punished but not in 1? Their actions were identical, it's just that one was luckier than the other.

I agree. I'm curious though, do you have any suggestions for ways to help women run and succeed? I'd be interested in hearing peoples' idea on this. Thanks.

This recent poll would suggest otherwise Link "And in Ontario, the Liberals were ahead in the most recent survey at 41 per cent to the Conservatives' 33 per cent. The NDP were at 14 per cent and the Green Party at 11 per cent in the province." and in Quebec... "The poll suggested the Tories surpassed the Liberals there for the first time in five months, sitting at 25 per cent. The Bloc Quebecois came in at 34 per cent, the Liberals at 20 per cent, the Green Party at 10 per cent and the NDP at 5 per cent." Seems the Conservatives are doing well in Quebec, but not so well in Ontario. That is a huge drop from a month ago: "In Ontario, the Tories held on to their advantage, leading the Liberals 37 per cent to 32 per cent" Link

If there is no one else on the road, then there is no one else on the road to enforce the law.

If that's the case, why not allow people to drive drunk and only punish the people who get into accidents while driving drunk? That wouldn't make much sense seeing as how the act of drinking & driving and drinking & driving & crashing are identical, it's just that in the former case the person was lucky enough not to hit anyone.

I'll agree with you on that much. I don't really want to see the Liberals move too far to the left (at least not fiscally).

*If* the Liberals move to the left, then yes you are correct. It's also possible that the Liberals could steal some NDP support. ...but that doesn't change what I said about undecided voters tending to vote Liberal.

I mean in terms of the three parties. In other words, people on the right (or centre if you choose to believe that the Liberals are on the left. Of course, it's all relative, you can't really have 60-70% of Canada on the left and 30-40% of Canada either in the centre or right...but that's another story) will vote conservative, and people on the (far) left will vote NDP. People in the middle of those two (or centre-left if we are using your defintions) will be the undecided. A lot of people will choose between the Conservatives & Liberals or Liberals & NDP. How many people choose between the Conservatives and NDP? Some perhaps, but probably not very many.

I imagine a lot of the undecided will end up voting Liberal, since they are in the middle. Anyone on the far right has probably already made up their mind to vote Conservative, and anyone on the far left has probably already made up their mind to vote NDP. It's the people in the middle who are undecided.

Nice deflection. Why don't you answer the original question? Also, does "select few" = Quebec ?

Is appeasement another word for keeping your promise?

Short term pain for long term gain. Why not! Are you suggesting that Harper has a secret agenda? That is, he is pandering to Quebec in order to gain a majority, and once he receives a majority will govern very differently?