jdobbin

Nope. I want a more segregated prison system than the general population system we have now. I don't think is a lot to ask considering we don't put women in male prisons. Think it should only be people who were charged before 18 where they are serving longer sentences. As for the rest of the prison system, I think it should be more segregated based on age, gang affiliation and danger to others.

If that is all someone like Kinsella did was negative ad campaigns, he would be rather ineffective. What we have seen in the last months is thousands of memberships growing for the Liberals and money pouring in. In two quarters more money and membership and have come in than an entire year or more. A lot of that has come from having experienced staff in place.

Speculation on your part. There does seem to be a growing feeling that desperate ad campaigns are out of touch. Didn't work in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia. The Liberals would do better to counter Tory negative ads by pointing out their negativity and countering their claims. The only way the logjam will be cleared is if a party shows people why they should be elected rather than why the other guy should not.

I've also said that crime is going down and it is not justice when one size fits all punishments are put in place. If Tories had any regard for public safety, they would have been paying for prisons and staffing rather than letting dangerous inmates escape. That has been on their watch.

Most climate experts have already said that local conditions will vary as CO2 levels rise. The world-wise trend is still up even if certain areas are affected by ocean current or natural sun cycles. However, once again, you don't have to convince me. Convince Harper. If he doesn't stop some of the already large programs such as ethanol, vote for someone else. This is something that global warming skeptics and deniers seem loath to do. The blame liberal, scientists and the media but then continue to vote for parties that are moving to cap and trade.

The corrected data also has shown that the trend is warmer globally now.

You'll have to be more specific.

Once again, measuring local weather and associating it with global changes is a sure way to make a wrong headed decision on whether warming is happening. Still, the critics you cite believe we are cooling globally, not warming.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070615.html Ablonczy demoted? She is certainly a target of the social conservatives in the last weeks. Most seem very angry with her on talk radio.

The problem with looking at local weather is that it isn't looking at global changes.

I said Opposition and Liberal created half the bills which they did. The Liberals created the majority of those bills. I showed that to you as well but you also ignored it. No, what I said was the Liberals and Opposition were creating private members bills that the NDP wouldn't support and later re-introduced themselves later on. As for your contention that the NDP are the real opposition, the recent polling has the NDP at 15%.

I showed you the stats and you dismissed them. They were real. Private member's bill don't show a commitment to govern even when Liberals put them forward. My argument with the NDP was that they have had a very light legislative agenda the last few years, are risk adverse and adopt legislation after it has been proposed by other parties first. And that is all real too.

I know that those who deny say all the data is false but when the new data was provided, it still showed the hottest years have been growing in our time.

I find that a lot of what happens seems to be an anti-science mixed with conspiracy theory. It would help if we saw more peer reviewed work from the people who come to different conclusions about CO2.

Evans has lied about his bio. He has no peer reviewed work and he is not an expert in modelling. And when he says follow the money, I do. It shows he get money from people with a strong interest in denying CO2 has a factor in warming.

The factual result is the end of settlements in Gaza and the focus now on West Bank. And I can factually say that your only focus so far has been on Israeli actions in this thread. Period. I do have an example: Gaza. Your sanctions approach would hurt the vulnerable. Sanctions always hurt the vulnerable. There is your balanced approach. It is increasingly evident that your hostility towards Israel guides you most strongly. But given no indication that it would work compared to a process under way that has already seen settlement end in Gaza. Your focus seems directed more at Israel. Thank you. I have shown your the process in place. Gaza first, West Bank next. There is that anti-Israel attitude. Hamas until Thursday refused to even support the process. Moreover, Fatah and Hamas were engaged in civil war-like fights. Aid was directed to who needed it in the Palestinian areas but it was a little hard to negotiate with people who didn't want to negotiate. Your disengagement has never worked. No party in Canada supports it. I can't imagine how you will vote next election but if you do vote NDP, it means tacit support to the process I support. I'll remind you of this if you do end up voting NDP. Then you can give me that million dollars.

We have already seen your feelings on private member's bills in Manitoba.

I am following the money and the writer of the article. David Evans has no peer reviewed research on global warming and is funded by the coal industry to deny global warming. Tim Lambert has full debunked every word he has said.

The NDP does not want to govern. They want to oppose.

Or you could run yourself and put your money where your mouth is.

Latest Strategic Counsel poll: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090707/...s_politics_poll Every summer as Parliament is out, the Tories rise. I wonder if they will call a snap election before Parliament even resumes in the fall to ensure they don't lose on a confidence measure.

The counterargument: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/th...ent=channellink I suppose if you believe that it is all wrong, you won't for Harper next election. Who will you vote for?

Since I have said repeatedly that is not what I want, you are just trying to make an accusation. It is like me saying your singular focus on Israel looks like tacit support for Hamas violence directed at civilians. Your example of coincidental change is not convincing. In fact, the sanctions you support often hurt the most vulnerable in the countries you mention. Sanctions did not change Iraq. The threat of military action did not change Iraq. The actual invasion changed Iraq but we don't know to what end and won't know for many years. As far as South Africa went, sanctions did not change that country. The Cold War was being fought there and the U.S. and the Soviets were prepared to play out their proxy war until one side or the other stopped. It was the Soviets who stopped supporting the military in 1990 and at that time, the South African government and ANC were left on their own to decide the next step. I'm afraid that is an accusation made by someone desperate to bring attention to their own argument. I call it as I see it. Your continuing sanctions until all diplomatic and trade relations are broken is disengagement. It doesn't work. Why does Israeli moves upset you more than any of the other areas of this debate? No crystal ball. This is history. Hamas said something they have said before. It is significant change and that is why others are starting to indicate movement at the London meeting. Glad to have you come on board then. All I see is the Israeli side of your argument that is all you write about. I have indicated that Canada needs to support the process from both sides and we have. We have to be critical of both sides when they falter and we have. However, we shouldn't use the threat of disengagement because it doesn't work. I'm sure you'll find a reason to vote NDP anyway although they don't advocate your position. I suppose that means tacit support for their Middle East policy if you do vote that way.

Each province has a right to a referendum on Senate changes. It can't be done with one vote controlled by Elections Canada. Any attempt to ram through a change like that would find the Feds in the Supreme Court where they would be slapped down.

I have no problems getting rid of the Senate. The provinces certainly got rid of their upper houses. If you can get the provinces to agree to it and only it as a constitutional change then by all means. I suspect though that everyone and their dog will start wanting to add things and we will see numerous other amendments tossed in and the Canadian people will will rightly toss them out if it is taken to a vote.