login

notwithstanding may effect the charter it does not effect the rest of the constitution, nor does it effect the bill of rights, nor the human rights act nor the provincial rights acts,

It is not the PM's responsibility. If it were the government it would be foreign affairs and trade. The PM going to india for whatever reason on their time is fine. its not part of their job description. Nor was it required, as stated the agrement was already agreed before the PM went to India. The ORIGINAL issue was the cost, which was completely out of line. God is god. This is getting way off topic. So I'm not going to reply to it here, but if you want to start a new thread on the role of MPs go right ahead, and give me a link. Not really it just presents you as inane. They are. They are not above politics, there is a difference. Criminal acts stemming from political process are not the law. It is called injustice and overreaching. Mr. Harper ain't a head of state. No, he's not. He'd probably be in Kingston somewhere. No, the legistlative process is subject to the law which includes the bounds of the constitution, the bill of rights and other common law fundamentals. It is not a I can do whatever I want card. It depends on the definition of interferance. This is a question of interpretation. I could provide a thesis for many situations. Who cares is a better answer though. Seeing something as ceremonial and it not serving any actual functions are two very different things. ? False acceration. This is a matter of interpretation. I digress. Your loss I suppose. Nope. Nope, I'm not going to repeat myself. Sure it was, it indirectly gave state affiliation to someone who didn't have state affiliation. Its like me taking Joe Blow and putting a uniform on him and letting him go out handcuff and throw people in a back of a car for jaywalking, not acceptable. This its because you want your way bs, is just that, its not what I think is "the best process" necesarily, but it is the legal process. Corrupting legal rule is a problem. Misinforming the public either directly or indirectly should not be acceptable and you arguing that he should be able to misinform the process on how government is suppose to function is abetting corruption, which is issued because you should be aware by now that is what it is. I'm not even going to reply to your idiocy. You are just being a troll. I've made my point, if you have yet to understand it, you need remedial. Not at all. Dissenting a position is not being a traitor, it is when you dissent a system that you are disloyal to that system. There is much room far away from corruption of a system to avoid being a traitor for reason of position on very many subjects. However systems at time have inbuilt points where attacking something in a specific way is being disloyal and jepordizing that system. When you reassign the functions of state knowingly you alter the powerbalance, and since republicanism is a known movement, it is clear that ascribing the PM state power is a form of republican positioning which acts in direct opposition to the legal Canadain executive and station functionary process, so it is disloyal to the legal Canadian system. That is yes, Republicanism is a movement for traitors to the legal Canadian System, it has been since Confederation. This has been a reality of whig politics since before Canada was alive. Now simply accepting you are a traitor to the legal rule, is completely acceptable but calling someone what they are should also be acceptable. There is a difference between legal dissent and treason. You either don't know it, or you do and are trolling. Yes I didn't try to say he can't say things, but I did try to correct the damage of his words. Although we both have the right to express ourselves. I didn't report the post. I replied to it. What is your problem? People who misinform the public do need to be reprimanded, it causes problems and results in victimization. So yes, it is a problem and it should be inforced. Mischeif results from misinformation, while as other aspects it can result in fraud through misrepresentation. These are actual laws, the fact it isn't enforced is a completely different issue. But yes, they should be corrected if there was a sincere attempt to misinform the public of the facts of law. it is section 380 of the criminal code. Government is a service. Yup. I'm not sure you are entitled to represent Argus' views. Either it is "Dishonesty" is determined on an objective standard determined by what a reasonable person would consider dishonest. [1] Dishonesty can also include non-disclosure where a reasonable person would consider it dishonest.[ or it is "Deceit" is "an untrue statement made by a person who knows that it is untrue, or has reason to believe that it is untrue, but makes it despite that risk, to induce another person to act on it, as if it were true, to that other person’s detriment." You are more on the grounds of "Falsehood" is a "deliberate lie". In saying the PM was on a state visit to India. He wasn't, that is a lie. They arn't stop being stupid. You are being stupid, the deal was already done.

No. Its the job of the PM to facilitate good government for Canada. The Government of Canada's best interests don't necesarily equate the best potential outcome for Canadians. The PM's decisions should transcend government and state, and be based on solid standards enshrined in the constitution. Concepts such as an acceptance of the supremarcy of God, life, liberty and security for all. If one upholds the constitution then one should hope that it represents the will of the Queen for the government, and that a strong government does not equate the best exercise of power, lest it is an exercise that enhances the freedoms of Canadians and protects the principles of democracy and equality. No idea an MP has never asked for my vote, only my comments. I've lost your meaning. Can you expand on that. How you see things? Its about how you make things, not how they appear. Peoples view is never full regardless, nor is it absolute. Kagaroo courts. They are political forums. One is ruled by their own law not foreign process. Justice is eternal. Lives are not. Or perhaps he would vote with his party? Perhaps they wouldn't I think these things depend on any given context and the fact votes in parliament are not votes on issues they are votes on direction of society both within the law and beyond it as consequence of process. I do not agree with that position. I do not agree with that position. While being blessed not to need to rely on public exercise of power, I would expect the proper exercise of power including duties as peace officers as it applies, as well as my ancestorial rights to be protected. I do not accept that ceeding of my powers which are invested through the Queen and respectively the governor general. That is a matter of interpretation of interferance. It is unfortunate that you can't understand the issue. There is no idiotic accusation there are statements of fact. I think you are going to need to go back and quote the post I call someone a traitor and examine the context in which any comments were said. I do not need to teach you how to read. Even if that were the case I bet yes, it would be because of their beleifs. What is your point? \Yes being a traitor usually does involve corruption and disloyalty when it regards something that could be viewed as legitimate authority. What crime? Position, not them per se. Yes Canada. Rule of Law, the truth. Defrauding the public by putting false information into the public domain on how Canada legally functions. Ascribing the PM to be a state actor instead of a government official that is not a state official. I don't know him. Should I? It seems likely. People are entitled to their view they are not entitled to misinform the public on the law. That is a crime. It is also a betrayal of the public interest. Don't lie about the law. Don't lie about the legal structure of government. The point is don't say the PM is a head of state, they arn't. Don't ascribe powers of a head of state to the PM, the PM doesn't legally have them. That is support of upsurping legitimate state authority. And that is not acceptable. That is the line. I'm sorry if you can't understand the issue is pretty clear. Come again? Not at all read the first definition. It is what my use of the word entailed. You referenced it as meaning #2. See the issue? There has been no physical act of war that I am aware of so the second definition doesn't apply. It does. The premise though is acting in the best interest, and protecting those interests because of the tie of allegience, it is not a one way event. Acting in someones best interest is that simply. I do not see any reason or intelligence in trying to overthrow the monarchy or not lending it support, but of course some people I stupid, I recognize that. Yes I will blame them for being stupid and expect more.

As opposed to what wormwood?

Do educate.... *gets popcorn*

I think this would be far more a judgement if it was Stephen Harper's seat. The thing is, if enough of these by elections were to knock conservatives out of their seats it could convert the majority to a minority... but that is not likely.

This is nonsense. The PM has almost no powers other than nomination. They in effect are a political advisor.

Judges make and break law, it is called "case law" as well as "constitutional law"

Not at all the issue is you are assigning the PM powers they don't have. References to the PM's responsibiltiy to make state visits etc.. The PM is not a head of state. They do not make state visits. That is very unparliamentary of you. Parliament is a place for dialogue not dictatorship. Its not about the PM its about the government. You are buffing the PM cult which is Americanism, and it is not good for democracy, thus nondemocratic in mind. Actually the opposite. Heads of state make the law, and execute it. Heads of state have immunity via international law. They are above domestic law. They have a veto on law as executive heads of state. (individuals can succeed from a union however and hold equal power but recognition will likely render them to foreign power if they do not sustain as rule by force comes into play rather than rule of law) You don't seem to understand the legislature just makes laws... the PM organizes government which administers the law.. in part, that is why they are "head of government" not head of the legislature. The Queen heads parliament not the PM. Get your bearings straight. You are wrong, that is the problem. You are passing off corruption as legitimate, it isn't. No I'm not shutting anyone up, I'm simply correcting the lies and republican bs. You call it insane when it is simply the facts. Someone is trying to paint someone that which they are not. Can't refute the truth so you refute the person speaking it. Quite contary it wasn't me that brought the criminal lable into it, it was another poster, sorry try again. My comments were an allusion. You can go back and see clearly somone else called out the criminal aspect, not myself. I do purport the conduct however is very traitorous. I didn't say they committed treason. Learn to read. Clearly you don't have the intellgence to take my comments in context. Purporting the PM is the head of state is traitorous conduct. So yes if you or he is trying to pass off the PM as a head of state yes you are traitors to the legitimate state of Canada. As you can see calling someone a traitor and accussing them of committing treason are two different literary ideas. Do you see the difference. traitor.. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country You can see that falsely assigning powers of state to the PM does not meet with the criteria of the Oath of Allegiance I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second It does not read... I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the PM. You are basically condoning upsurping powers to the Office of PM that do not legitmately belong to them, that is not acceptable.

Yeah cause Obama took the time to ask me for $5... My gosh I'd give Obama $5 and Justin $10 if they hand typed the email and pressed send themselves. The fact is these big wig campaign teams run their own show. Heck it is probably some aid who signs off on the stuff, I bet Justin didn't even see that email before you. And that is no failing on his part at least on par with any other MP's out there. Very few ministers or high profile people actually see their own mail and send their own campaign stuff, they have people that do that. They are handled. Now there are some MPs that handle their own mail, but most MPs even have their own secretaries that screen their mail. MPs will set up in person chats, and that is the only way you know it is them behind something... If you don't actually talk to them personally andhav esome sort of westside hand sign to know it is the real McCoy don't think or lable it as the real McCoy. Some of these aids get labled as terrorists and pedophiles after the government falls... you know because sensitive information is sensitive. Anyway point is I doubt it was him that had anything to do with the mail out. Other than "yeah we need money for the campaign, go get some otherwise your paycheck is coming late."

no guns who cares.

There is a fine line between rascism for review, and hate speech. http://www.parl.gc.c...tions/856-e.htm http://laws-lois.jus...e-153.html#h-92 What gets me is that the attorney general is the one who gets to decide who can be killed legally en masse... It was clearly criminal conduct, and the host didn't seem to understand the line was very much crossed. I'm thinking the caution was warrented, however, I couldn't comment more until I actually hear the recording but "Maria" is clearly open to breaking the law and represents hate of Israeli's. I'd give the host a little more room on this because of the caution, none the less, it clearly is a violation of the law. Canadians just seem to have trivialized the harsh realities faced by their ancestors some 60 years ago. It is like putting people on the air suggesting cloning Mohammad so genocide can exist for Muslims too. It is just a sensative subject that people should know isn't acceptable speach to support killing lots of people on identifiable grounds. Although the wide array of people Arabs call dogs doesn't make that anything special, (Its like me calling someone a Turd) I think the problem here is advocating the holocaust because it supports genocide of Jews, and that is not only a crime but an indicatble offence in Canada, which means that anyone saying that stuff endangers themselves. It really creates inhumanity in the mind like suggesting Maria go to the concentration camps and ovens with her family, and perhaps to realize how grave the issue is insure she comes back alone. But those types of thoughts are just stupid and not the type of mindframe Canadians should be in. This is nothing special. But if we are to move beyond the hate of the past we must rationalize that it is specific individuals not everyone that should be corrected. Afterall some Israeli's don't like what is happening in Gaza or the invasion, not every Jew or Israeli is the same much like not every Arab is like Maria. If we just start being all mean to each other we wouldn't be making any baked goods other than yesterdays minority. Come on everyone should realize Genocide isn't socially acceptable, because it changes the game. (even though I do support killing off the willing criminals, I don't beleive in race, it is just culture much like nationality only exists as an aspect of culture and the laws judged as qualifiers of being that nationality) I know people who are Israeli, which includes Arabs.. so I find the whole line of the issue just stupid. You know Maria there are Arab Israeli's too...

And.... 1st off that is said to be his campaign team, not him. Also this isn't begging begging would be... please give me $10 so I can not have to pay off a massive debt... which has me question.. why such a large tab.. the answer they spend more than they have to put on a show. it is idiocy. Not directed at Justin Trudeau but I am disgusted poilticans turn to the public for handouts. Political process shouldn't take millions. The whole process is corrupt.

While I agree with some of that I think you are stretching it a bit. I really don't see how my position is equal to that. Smart guy though he was dead on about the conservative debt being over 20 billion, so far. But I think that billion dollar debt comment, is probably suppose to be a trillion dollars. Look at this, the Liberals sole sourced project may be revisited.. http://news.national...er-jet-sources/ Derek,if you wern't buying the F35 what would you buy?

The PM nominates the PM does not appoint. I don't feel it.

My view is that making the PM into a head of state is a distortion of reality and constitutes treasonous rhetoric because it acts as an eclipse of power, and semantically turns the PM into a power able to conduct a bloodless coupe and seize powers and status that isn't rightfully theirs. No they can't the political realm isn't the end all of justification. No he doesn't. He may be an equal but he is an equal. Meaning he is subject to the law like anyone else. Heads of state are above the law. Passing him off as a head of state is indirectly supposing that. No they arn't. Expressive. Calling people insane to limit equality on basis of disability. There you go making character attacks again in a way that shows disrespect on grounds of disability. Its not because its different from my own, its because it is a distrotion of the truth which creates a power inbalance and gives power to people that arn't suppose to have it.

People are individuals. You seem to espouse this blind loyalty even if individuals don't support. I find that view disgusting. People who do their jobs will act based upon their opinions and not simply act as yesmen. You are basically saying the CPC is a bunch of puppetted shills. While sure some MPs do appear to be, I don't think that is universal. There have been falling outs, sure it has been in the PMs favour to date but time is catching up. The same is true for courts or the senate. Personally I think people are not braindead, if a position is strong enough people will be won over. Its a hard time to get through programming but if it is true enough and the posturing is correct,the light of day will be seen even if the PM doesn't agree. By supporting your view, you are more or less saying it is acceptable. Its not.

Drink a lot of milk and have a field.. buy one appparently they run $600-2000 and produce 40-80 lbs of milk / day. That is 20-40 litres per day. You can see how you could pretty much make your money back in a couple days. Say $2/ litre that is $40-80 per day. That is a month to 4 months you have made your money back. Even if you don't drink that much yourself say you only want 2 litres a day, you can split it with 10 to 20 friends.

I'm going to ask you stop referring to me as 'William'. In regard to my rough plan - it is just a guideline, I'd still prefer Jets 100% made in canada with full Canadian rights. As for why the mixture. The f-18's are for pilots as well as reserve airforce call back capacity (if pilot numbers drop for whatever reason or callback is required removing the need to retrain). They are also relatively cheap and can be used for a wide range of missions. The Rafael are for their supercruise and beyond sight guidance and other capacities, as well as being something to give Canada more French connections, to Balance out British and American defence procurements, as well as for political reasons. The Rafale is a versatile aircraft. I see this one as something that can be deployed to Europe or the Middle East or Africa, and potentially be more supported in France (or countries like the UAE etc.. that are also potentially procuring them) if Required, insuring that fluent french speaking pilots use this aircraft for interoperability with French Forces. The F35 is for Norad interoperatiblity and for stealth operations, and for Joint operations as required. The availability is another issue, I see f-18 deliveries perhaps being ideal if lumped in with US Navy orders. While it may take some time to roll out the Rafale. The f35 is also "sketchy" on delivery, as it isn't even a complete package. I like 3 models because it allows non sole dependence on one model and leaves the enemy geussing. Example throwing in some f-18s with some f35s to further mask force composition. having a rafale to supliment f35 capabilities or f18 capacitities etc.. As for the nuclear strike bomber. I think that it allows Canada to have force projection it wouldn't otherwise have. The aircraft range is tremendous, and it is versatile in many ways. It is an ace up the sleeve. Having DEWS onboard an aircraft to take out incoming threats or even arming it with EW and c&c capacities ability to control drones or otherwise puts something out there that is way better than anything else going in terms of operational range and in air time. It could also be used as a conventional bomber if needed, or troop transport for special forces or "robot warriors". I see the robot warrior aspect, that is small killer robots as an element not yet very greatly utilized. Inserting robots to wreak havok on the ground or precision sabotage is something that hasn't had much public light but if you can drop a robot to take out communication lines or a facility through exact demo placements as opposed to dropping a bomb and potentially killing civllians, the robot warrior drop seems to have more usability. Eg. drop 100 robots or 100 bomblets. The 100 precision strikes or coordinated assault capacities are tremendous and can be more efficient. None the less I'm not confident in the f35 to be the sole jet for the next 20 years. I think technology is changing too fast for that to be the case. I think Canada will end up with something that is not as good as its rivals such as China.

Oh your insane detector went off. That is reassuring, mr. Singals.Cpl to say what is sane and what isn't. I know the law quite well thank you very much. Just because you like the idea of the PM as president doesn't erase the fact he can be sacked by the Governor General or Queen. It also doesn't erase the fact that the house can bring down his government. It also doesn't place the PM beyond the law. They arn't they have no immmunity that heads of state enjoy in other countries. So it is you who is living in a fantasy land. None the less I'm quite sane thankyou. Keep to looking for aircraft and subs and leave your insane detector to no one as calling someone insane due to their expression is unconstitutional and just showing you to not support the values that Canadians are to hold, that being support of Charter Rights as an essential mechanism for respect within soceity, and one that all authority should purport in their interactions with the public. Its unfortunate people who don't support the constitution are employed by the Canadian Forces. You are just programmed to see communications as "normal" fact is lots of people arn't normal, live with it.

learn the law

Why are f 35's needed for free exchange again? Don't their freighters come to Canada's ports?

false, it takes 1 person to sack the pm it takes the whole senate to sack a president (normally) Your view is corrupt and disloyal. learn what peace and good order are and you might knkw whatt it means ti be canadian. You are a traitor for beleiving the PM is a state power. They are not. Your head is full of republicanist propaganda. shake it out. The PM is no where in the constitutuion.

Protest vote. Ontario is fairly conservative but it ain't Albertan conservative. You don't get it. That ain't the CPC that is the tag alongs. It is PC Ontario & Reform Alliance west... but the whole thing is very new wave. People will remember why they hated the PC's. The young people don't have the money or the jobs. It is turnover and well if you know the real story to why the PC's are at the helm this is a no brainer. They ain't on the wheel though.

Its not a state visit if you arn't head of state state visits should be for major milestones, not trade deals that is just hollow. The PM ain't head of state. Canadian republicanism must die. We are better off in a strong commonwealth equal and free. Republicanism is just another form of tyranny. The PM is a political advisor and administrator of the government ministires. Not someone with plenary powers of state. They have no powers of state, no legal force or effect. They are not equal to US president get it out of your system. This is what happens when you let the cia and american media have free reign over Canadian culture. The PC just represent a tyranny of the right.