jdobbin

So if a judge can be trusted to give a higher sentence but can't be trusted for any other decision?

Please. The picture of a man leading a boy away. Pure gutter politics. You think this is a winning formula?

That the judge may give a higher sentence?

The view from the BQ and one shared by some legal experts is that judges should have more discretion in sentencing. The Tories frame the question as just about pedophiles. Forgive me if I warn you and your right friends in advance that this is not likely going to over well in Quebec. Believe it. And then what will you? Show some anti-French Canadian venom?

Really? You have seen flyers that accuse the other parties of supporting pedophiles. I think this is going to hit the Tories square on the chin.

And they are in the gutter like this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1204745/ Looks like the Tories are up to their old tricks. Let's see how it affects them in the polls in Quebec.

So you must be disappointed in the NDP of Saskatchewan.

Since it has no deficit and continues to have economic growth, it does seem to be doing something differently. Are you suggesting that resource wealth is the only way to measure a province's success? Is it your contention that federal spending is responsible for the province not going into the depth's of recession like some provinces are?

I don't want to see it on the main page. Put it at the end of the story. It is clutter otherwise.

What I dislike about the CBC site is that I don't want to see how many people have commented or rated the story high on the main page. Scrap it. I hate it. I don't know many people who do. I think the main page should look more like the BBC News page. http://news.bbc.co.uk/ It is clean and not full of crap like the CBC page is.

Guess this means you will not be voting for Harper next time. He increased equalization.

I was thinking of what could be gained by having Syria end it support of attacks they have supported on Lebanese soil against Israel. There are landowners from Syria that lost their land when the Heights were taken. That should be the incentive for Syria plus sovereignty over that land again. A security force left in place and a peace agreement could see an end to tensions there. Was it so different between Israel and Egypt?

Syria has been making overtures to the U.S. It might be about the best time to see if a lasting peace agreement is possible. There may be a major shift in Iran and Syrian relations. If settlements from Golan an be removed, land turned back to Syria, a peace agreement signed and a security force left in place, we can say another step has been made to security in the area. A force in place in Syria can't be merely an observation force. It has to be able to stop insurgent attacks from the heights and it has to be able to turn away Syrian and Israeli forces from entering. Sadly, this had a lot to do with the aftermath of the Palestinian elections and Hamas trying to assert themselves by lashing out because they felt there were no consequences. Land for peace is still the strategy that has to be tried. if Israel continues to expand, they will find it harder and harder to protect their people. That is certainly a possibility. However, if the land ownership is disputed, it will be difficult. In other words, if a settlement was built on land once owned by a Palestinian, it will be the source of friction. You take your opportunities where you can find them. I think Syria represents the best opportunity in decades. You should see the 4th of July message that Syria sent to the U.S. It certainly looks like something that might lead to fruitful talks.

I don't think there can be a peace agreement with Syria without addressing the Golan Heights. If the land is turned over, I think it will have to be secured by an outside force and Israeli and Syrian military would have to be excluded from entering it. To have any credibility that force probably have to be something other than the U.N. Israel knows expansion is illegal and even many Israelis believe the policy is provocative. Land for peace is the only way this going to work. If settlements continue, the Israelis will find themselves stretched too thin and their security will continue to be threatened. Don't think they ever wanted the territory. It certainly might have been better for security since both those countries are fairly enlightened in regards to their relations with Israel.

With the NDP, we get corruption with their own election of leader. Shame.

The factual proof is that Gaza was the first step and the next step was West Bank. It halted the expansion of settlements in Gaza and ended them. That is success. Now the focus can be on the West Bank. I suspect if we had followed your methods in Northern Ireland, we'd not have been in place to help usher in the present condition we see now.

I have supported Israel all my life. It isn't an uncritical support but it follows some basic principles: Israel is a Jewish state and Israel has the right to defend itself from attack. My support comes from the fact that Israel is a democracy and as such has the best chance of achieving peace. We have seen some remarkable ground in Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan and I think similar things can be achieved with Lebanon and Syria with some effort. Having said that, their actions in the West Bank are provocative and illegal. My support for the Palestinians comes from the fact that they too are a state. Their last elections were remarkably democratic but the outcome was literally a state of civil war of violent competing causes. The security of the areas they presently hold allows for attacks to happen on Israel which is unacceptable. If more land is to come, it has to come with the prospect of peace.

I think we had this discussion a while back. I said if Palin was interested in running for President, she would have to leave Alaska politics because she is just too far away to effectively campaign for it now. Republicans are already going to Iowa and New Hampshire. If she is interested, she will have he team ready to hit the campaign trail in the fall full-time.

When Alberta stops getting $4 billion a year from the Feds, I will take some of their more right wing citizens more seriously.

I tell you facts but you don't hear them. I say it as many times back but you always says "but..." And you ignore the process that way set up before that did success and think that a new unproven one will work. Think not? I'd say your process could easily be worse since it concludes changes will happen from not being involved. We have both sides of that conflict telling us it won't.

And the reality is that the focus is now on the West Bank whereas your focus is disengagement and sanctions. Sanctions don't work so that strategy us more or less bankrupt.

And even more to secure the peace. That is why land is traded for peace. Or do you think Israel will do this if they think that they will be attacked militarily regardless?

Someone wanted to live there because they fought tooth and nail to stay when Israeli troops pulled them out of their houses and bulldozed them as part of the deal.

Looks like the CBC is going the 24 hour news cycle. Good bye Antiques Roadshow on Newsworld. http://www.insidethecbc.com/big-changes-underway-at-cbc-news Politics will now be a 2 hour show. Quite a recovery after looking like it was going to be cancelled. The National News will run on the main network 7 days a week. It will replace the weak Sunday news and the non-existent Saturday news late at night.