jdobbin

And you know the numbers involved? The construction of buildings already in progress also came with a freeze and no new expropriation or new building. What is the NDP policy at this time? Sanctions? Pulling the ambassador? If they have no policy, one would assume they support the process in place now.

I'm afraid you are just making up numbers now. We should be hearing soon about how many are in the 23 settlements to closed. And Mitchell is briefing the President about the freeze expected to be announced on settlements according to the Israeli and U.S. press. Your focus has been solely on settlements and not on any other area by what we can see here. And your plan to abandon and disengage and set terms unilaterally from Canada on all of what is happening over there is something no party has agreed to.

I am thinking about the cost. I don't believe it is cheaper housing people in super prisons. It costs a lot in terms of security and I don't believe it helps in rehabilitation for those who eventually will be released.

No excuses for the delay except for the fact that it would probably have led to an election and based on the stands of most of the parties, we'd be having an election all the time. How many elections do you want?

That may have been you but our history is filled with elections where people were moved to vote based on what was happening to places where they still had family and friends. It has always been in Canada's interests. You can't stop people voting for a party they believe will be involved in matters pertaining to where they still might have friend, family, cultural or religious ties.

You must really be annoying in person. Canada's position on all settlements is that they are illegal. Need help telling the truth? The New York Times story is from May.

The 23 settlements were not named but sources in Israel say some are fair sized. We'll probably have to wait for the Defence minister's speech back in Israel to get more details.

Here is an Israeli response now that the meeting has just ended. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/167600 Some in the Israeli cabinet are furious because they think they don't get anything from doing this.

Afraid you have it wrong. Again.

That settlement is not included in the present talks. It is an additional 23 settlements. Canada's position is that new settlements are illegal. That's what the talks are all focused on now. Your position is Canada should not be part of a solution until every violent act and settlement are gone.

It is in your own link. Follow it back to the Israelis press. They just finished talking about it on CNN as well. All of this is being talked about at the London conference now.

And Canadian security. De-escalating tensions in a part of the world that can export their fight to a much wider area should be Canada's concern They are relevant to some Canadians and it affects their votes accordingly.

Nope. The focus is now on West Bank whether you like it or not. I disagree. Your position of sanctions and disengagement will do nothing. I'd day we'll see some changes this year actually. The 23 settlements that are being talked about would be a significant move. I realize that you support Hamas but they were not interested in talking until now. They were interested in an uprising and terrorismism. Your anti-Israel stance seems very one sided. And now the focus is on the West Bank. Actually, it is a fact. You have only really talked about Israel here and your solutions have been sanctions which you say are effective. I realize you want it all and you want it now but that is not what the roadmap was about. It was about concentrating on one area at a time. And now the time is for the West Bank. Even now while talks are going on, your solution is to quit. Your concentration on Israel and settlements while ignoring Hamas attacks is noteworthy. Canada's position was for both to stop the violence and get back to the table. It is at the heart of what your position: Don't do what Canada wants and get cut off. And yet Israel and Palestine trust us. How do we know this? Because they told us. Our way or the highway. Yes, I know. Your position is that Canada seems to set the criteria for solving other people's problems. But your act is. Word, or act, choose one, as they are so obviously far apart. Best of luck with that.

The success will be in the evacuation and removal of the other 23 settlements which dwarf the other announcement.

And the removal of 23 settlements as the article says as well. There is a lot going in London now including talks of a much larger recognition of Israel by Arab countries but movement on the settlement issue is at the hear of the talks.

As I said, it would have to be 10 out of 10. And Quebec has already said it does not want change. It would be hard to proceed past that. Moreover, if the issue of the Senate comes up, I guarantee that every other constitutional issues would somehow come as well such as the Quebec, First Nations, etc. It could be the constitutional chaos of years earlier.

For Senate changes, it is 10 out 10 provinces must agree. I say good luck with that. Anything is possible but 10 out 10?

Not according to some of the foremost constitutional experts. If you tried to force elections on Quebec, for example, that province could go to the Supreme Court and the Feds would be slapped down so fast their heads would spin. Likewise, if the NDP ever got into government and they did not appoint Senators, they would be in defiance of the Constitution and the Governor General would make the appointments instead. If you don't believe that, look it up. The Governor General has that power and would not tolerate unilateral abolition of the Senate by one political party by not appointing people.

Probably because there is no economic reason for any Canadian television. There is possibly a political and social reason for it. I guess it depends if local programming is of any importance to Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/07/06/local-tv.html I think that for people concerned about media concentration in large markets like Toronto, this is an important step. Many of the struggling local TV stations are in Tory ridings and many people would not be happy losing a local TV news service. I don't if this is enough to stop the shut down of some of the stations such as in Brandon.

It now appears that the decision on Ablonczy is indeed being characterized as a demotion. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The focus is factual. Gaza was first and the West Bank is next. The removal of settlements from Gaza was successful, the ending of violence directed from there not. With cessation of attacks, the process resumes once again. Hamas is listed a terrorist organization because of what its stated goals are which is to end Israel's existence. It is only now they have taken a different tact. The focus was initially on Gaza. Now it is on the West Bank. Canadian aid to Gaza was halted only when Gaza and the Israelis chose to fight and it endangered lives. Aid has now resumed unless you know differently. Canada spend $300 million a year in aid to Palestine. Just noting that your focus is completely on Israel. And that is what happened with Gaza. Well, all you talk about is Israel. And you don't seem to understand that it was a geographic focus first and moving to the West Bank next. I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine. I support the process. You support sanctions. That's what the process is about. When / if people see real movement on each and all of the above they would be much more likely to trust and support peace process eventually forcing their leaders to negotiate. Needless to say that it's very unlikely to happen in the context of your one sided "friendly involvement", that tacitly encourages (by refusing to react in any meaningful way) illegal actions like creeping annexation, and thus delaying and compromising the genuine movement toward peace in the region. Well, that's what you are talking about. Sanctions if Israel and Palestine don't meet your demands. Think you'll find no support for sanctions. My side is not one sided. Your appears to be very much so. But let me know how it goes with the NDP. I can't imagine you will find success there with your idea.

I think I have pretty much shown that it is true. And now there is growing talk of Doer running for the federal Liberals at some point. I wonder what the average car carrying NDPer will say then. Probably wouldn't be a lot of nice thing to say about him then.

I don't believe either should be in a general population adult prison. Nor do we put women together with men even if the offence is the same. I think it should be the same with under 20 as do many people who believe that segregated prisons make for safer prisons for inmates and guards alike.

His good grasp of the file has him spending billions already on things that are likely not effective or are political solutions rather than ones that can make a difference on CO2 levels. The experts are supposed to give their best assessments based on global temperatures. The one that is still is known is that the trend on temps is still up and that the best peer reviewed work indicates that CO2 levels are responsible for that trend going up the way it is. Harper is spending billions already though and the opportunity to do something not tied to American moves is now lost. Cap and trade it is and I've always argued that it is more expensive.